David Ricardo’s theory of comparative

advantage and its implication for

development in Sub-Saharan Africa
A decolonial view

D Ukwandu
Department of Public Management and Governance
University of Johannesburg
South Africa

ABSTRACT
The Euro-American predominance of understandings and narratives of development
has produced the current global world order, where African-centered solutions and
alternatives to the problems of poverty and underdevelopment on the continent are
ignored or inferiorised. Drawing awareness from a decolonial view and deploying the
concept of the decoloniality of power and knowledge itself, this article seeks to conduct
a thorough interrogation of David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage. According
to Auriacombe (in Schurink and Auriacombe 2010:435 and Auriacombe 2012:98)
“due to the different ontological and epistemological beliefs of researchers belonging
to different paradigms, the criteria for trustworthy, credible research can never meet
everyone’s approval”, therefore, given this reality, the aim of the article is to show that
another worldview exists which could help Africa out of its development quagmire.
Using the theory of the coloniality of knowledge in particular, this article illustrates how
the notion of increasing returns helped in the economic transformation of Spain. It will
also show how countries in sub-Saharan Africa can learn from the Spanish example
about the importance of adding value to its natural resources. This article argues that
the full liberation and development of the continent will only come to fruition with
the implementation of African-centered policies, such as increasing returns and adding
value to the natural resources which we export to other parts of the world. It is through
this policy that jobs can be created and poverty alleviated on the continent, which will
kick-start Africa’s journey towards overall development.

INTRODUCTION
Africa is rich in natural and human resources, and is in fact one of the most naturally endowed

Volume 8 number 3 • September 2015 17

continents in the world. Despite this, however, it is currently one of the poorest continents in
the world (Ayittey 2005:46). Africa has rich soils that are suitable for agricultural cultivation,
yet millions of people on the continent go hungry (Abubakar 1989:28). It has abundant water
resources for irrigation, transportation and hydroelectric power generation, but still uses less
energy than almost any of the major cities in the developed world (Acemoglu and Robinson
2012:20).
Carmody (2011:2) aptly describes the African development quagmire as a ‘paradox of
plenty’, underscoring the fact that although Africa is a very resource-rich continent, the
majority of its people continue to live in abject poverty and economic deprivation. The
resources available on the continent are staggering: it contains 42% of the world’s bauxite,
38% of its uranium, 42% of its gold, 88% of its diamonds and 10% of its proven oil reserves
(Bush 2007:32). South Africa alone has 88% of the world’s platinum, while Africa also has
52% of the world’s manganese, 54% of its cobalt and 82% of its chromium stocks (Gordon
and Wolpe 1998:55). Despite all these natural resources, why does more than half the
population of sub-Saharan Africa live on less than US $1.25 a day? (World Bank 2010:37).
This article attempts to highlight the fact that the theory of comparative advantage,
which was developed by David Ricardo and which is indeed one of the intellectual building
blocks of the current era of international trade and globalisation, is incapable of extricating
the continent from poverty, unemployment and underdevelopment. Despite the fact that
between 2000 and 2010, six of the fastest growing economies in the world were the African
countries of Angola, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Chad and Rwanda (The Economist
2011), this rapid economic growth has not benefitted ordinary Africans. This article
interrogates the intellectual roots of David Ricardo’s theory and its relevance or lack thereof
for alleviating poverty and reducing unemployment and underdevelopment on the continent.
There is evidence in the literature, that in spite of the high growth rates recorded on the
continent, poverty still persists, and in spite of its wealth of natural resources, sub-Saharan
Africa has only managed to increase its per capita income from $429 to $639, which is
a gain of $210, in over 60 years of independence (Mills and Herbst 2012:3). Deploying
the notion of decoloniality of knowledge, this article will show that Africa may not escape
this economic limbo if it continues to believe in the efficacy of theories and epistemologies
which are wholly Western, Eurocentric and not rooted in the socio- economic realities of the
continent. There are alternative narratives on theories of development, as evidenced by the
remarkable transformation of South-East Asian countries.

THE THEORY OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE

David Ricardo was not the first economist to use the term ‘comparative advantage’, as there
are references to the term as far back as the early part of the 19th century (Jones 1961:163;
Irwin 1996:21). Robert Torrens made allusions to the concept of comparative advantage
in his article entitled Essay on the External Corn Trade (Jones 1961:163). It was after this
article that David Ricardo popularised the idea in his 1817 book entitled On the Principles
of Political Economy and Taxation. The idea appeared again in James Mill’s Elements of
Political Economy in 1822 (Machlup 1977:15; Roberts 2006:20). It came to dominate
international economic thinking and development policies when John Stuart Mills published

18 African Journal of Public Affairs

the critically acclaimed book Principles of Political Economy in 1848 (Boudreaux 2004:375;
Irwin 1996:21; Buchanan and Young 2002:400; Machlup 1977:15; Roberts 2006:20; Jones
1961:163).
The benefit of free trade or international trade between countries in the modern world
was first highlighted in the economics and development literature by one of the classical
economists, Adam Smith, in his book entitled The Wealth of Nations (2003:20). Adam Smith
referred to it as the concept of absolute advantages in production. This is how he explained
it: “If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can
make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed
in a way in which we have some advantage” (Smith 2003:20).
The ideological foundations of the theory of international trade, which gave birth to
the idea of comparative advantage, were very prominent in the writings of Adam Smith
(Smith, 2003), who argued that all unutilised resources in a country must be allocated to
the production of surplus foods for export, and that the surplus must be ‘vented abroad’ in
order to generate much-needed income to enhance the development of local economies.
Smith (2003:20) explained that: “When the produce of any particular branch of industry
exceeds what the demand of the country requires, the surplus must be sent abroad, and
exchanged for something for which there is a demand at home. Without such exportation, a
part of the productive labour of the country must cease, and the value of its annual produce
diminishes” (Smith 2003:20).
Following in the footsteps of Adam Smith and Robert Torrens, David Ricardo formulated
his theory of comparative advantage (Jones 1961:163). David Ricardo (cited in Machlup
1977:15; Roberts 2006:20) used the examples of Portugal specialising in wine and England
specialising in cloth to show the necessity for countries to focus on those goods in which they
have comparative advantage over other countries. In the same vein, the country’s imports
will be scarce goods. It is important to understand that Ricardo’s theory (cited in Boudreaux
2004:375; Jones 1961:163; Buchanan and Yoon 2002:400) of comparative advantage was
premised on the following assumptions:
●● There are two countries and two commodities.

●● There will be perfect competition (both in commodities and factor markets).

●● The cost of production is measured in terms of labour, and the value of a commodity

is measured in terms of labour hours/days required to produce it.

●● Labour is the only factor of production, and other factors, such as natural resources,

are ignored.
●● The cost of labour in both developed and developing countries is similar.

●● Labour is perfectly mobile within a country, but perfectly immobile between countries.

●● International trade between countries is not encumbered by any kind of barrier or

tariffs.
●● Production is subject to constant returns to scale.

●● There is no possibility of technological changes altering the factors of production.

●● A barter economy is the sole means of trade between countries.

●● Full employment exists in both countries, ignoring the realities of life in many

developing countries of the world, especially in Africa, which experience poverty,

unemployment and underemployment.

Volume 8 number 3 • September 2015 19

 ●● Transport is not viewed as a factor of production (cited in Irwin 1996:21; Buchanan
and Young 2002:400; Boudreaux 2004:375; Machlup 1977:15; Roberts 2006:20).

On the basis of some of these assumptions, David Ricardo (cited in Irwin 1996:21) developed
his theory of comparative advantage, which he believed was inherent to Portugal’s
production of wine and England’s manufacturing of cloth. This is how he explained it: “To
produce the wine in Portugal might require only the labour of 80 men for one year, and
to produce the cloth in the same might require the labour of 90 men for the same time. It
would therefore be advantageous for her to export wine in exchange for cloth. This exchange
might even take place notwithstanding that the commodity imported by Portugal could be
produced there with less labour than in England. Though she could make cloth with the
labour of 90 men, she would import it from a country where it required the labour of 100
men to produce it, because it would be advantageous to her rather to employ her capital in
the production of wine, for which she would obtain more cloth from England, than she could
produce by diverting a portion of her capital from the cultivation of vines to the manufacture
of cloth” (cited in Irwin 1996:21).

DECOLONIALITY AND ITS RELEVANCE

TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
Some scholars both in the developed and developing countries of the world question the
relevance of the idea of the decoloniality perspective in the 21st century, when it is more
than 50 years since most countries in sub-Saharan Africa achieved political independence
from their European colonial masters (Ndlovu-Getsheni 2012:73). The valid truth is that the
theory of decoloniality is still very relevant, because Africa is still mired in socio-economic
doldrums and there is a need to decolonise, indigenise and Africanise many of the theories
that shape the discourse and direction of development on the continent (Ndlovu-Getsheni
2012:73). Walter Mignolo (1995:28) is of the view that the decolonial view gives prerogative
to the life encounters and worldview of those whom the French psychiatrist Frantz Fanon
referred to as the ‘wretched of the earth’ (cited in Ndlovu-Getsheni 2013:2). This is how
Walter Mignolo explained it: “The wretched are defined by the colonial wound, and the
colonial wound, physical and psychological is a consequence of racism, the hegemonic
discourse that questions the humanity of all those who do not belong to the locus of
enunciation of those who assign the standard of classification and assign to themselves the
right to classify” (cited in Ndlovu-Getsheni 2013b:2).
A discourse of development that is not decolonised presents paradigms and theories which
may be a hindrance to the development of the continent. It is true that colonial administrations
have been dismantled throughout Africa, but the reality on the ground is that coloniality is
still very much present on the continent. Ramon Grosfoguel (2007:219) elaborated on this
by stating the following: “One of the most powerful myths of the twentieth century was the
notion that the elimination of colonial administrations amounted to the decolonisation of
the world. This led to the myth of a ‘post-colonial’ world. The heterogeneous and multiple
global structures put in place over a period of 450 years did not evaporate with the juridical-
political decolonisation of the periphery over the past 50 years. We continue to live under

20 African Journal of Public Affairs

the same ‘colonial power matrix’. With juridical-political decolonisation we moved from a
period of ‘global colonialism’ to the current period of ‘global coloniality’. Although ‘colonial
administrations’ have been almost entirely eradicated and the majority of the periphery is
politically organised into independent states, non-European people are still living under
crude European/Euro American exploitation and domination. The old colonial hierarchies
of European versus non-Europeans remain in place and are entangled with the ‘international
division of labour’ and accumulation of capital at a world-scale” (Grosfoguel 2007:219).
The decolonial narrative is necessitated by resistance and the search for alternative
narratives and theories, which takes into consideration the knowledge, encounters, views
of countries which were casualties of slavery, colonialism and apartheid (cited in Ndlovu-
Getsheni, 2013b:2). Decoloniality is deeply shaped by the perspectives, writings and
epistemologies of prominent scholars like Ndlovu-Getsheni, Aime Cesaire, Frantz Fanon,
Immanuel Wallestein, Steve Biko, Amilcar Cabral, Kwame Nkrumah, Grosfoguel, Mignolo
and others (Cesaire 1972:84; Fanon 1968b:32; Biko 1978:25; Mignolo 1995:34; Wiredu
1996:38, Grosfoguel 2011:5; Wallestein 1991:15; Ndlovu-Getsheni 2013b:2).
A decolonial view on the discourses of development takes full cognisance of the
deleterious effects of slavery, colonialism and imperialism on the conditions of life on the
continent. The objective of this perspective is to unfurl epistemic views and perspectives
interwoven in Euro-centric ideas and theories, such as the theory of comparative advantage.
Through this process, the decolonial interrogation would help Africans to imagine alternative
worldviews, theories, policies and ideas in the discourse of development. This is because
coloniality is active in this century and it is the pre-eminent paradigm which shapes
development discourses and policy making on the continent (Grosfoguel 2007:219). Ndlovu-
Getsheni (2013b:10) explained it this way: “What Africans must be vigilant against is the trap
of ending up normalising and universalising coloniality as a natural state of the world. It must
be unmasked, resisted and destroyed because it produced a world order that can only be
sustained through a combination of violence, deceit, hypocrisy and lies” ( Ndlovu-Getsheni
2013b:10).
It is crucial that the author differentiates between colonialism and coloniality, in order
to unveil a better understanding of the issues being discussed. A leading authority on
decoloniality, Nelson Maldonado-Torres (2007:242), described coloniality in the following
words: “Coloniality is different from colonialism. Colonialism denotes a political and
economic relation in which the sovereignty of a nation or a people rests on the power of
another nation, which makes such a nation an empire. Coloniality, instead, refers to long-
standing patterns of power that emerged as a result of colonialism, but that define culture,
labour, inter-subjectivity relations, and knowledge production well beyond the strict limits
of colonial administrations. Thus, coloniality survives colonialism. It is maintained alive in
books, in the criteria for academic performance, in cultural patterns, in common sense, in
the self-image of peoples, in aspirations of self, and so many other aspects of our modern
experience. In a way, as modern subjects, we breathe coloniality all the time and every day”
(Maldonado-Torres 2007:243).
The decolonial perspective preludes the appearance of a ‘decolonial turn’ (Mignolo
1995:34; 2005:33) which pivots on the dire need for the decolonisation of all knowledge
which suffered under colonial exploitation, humiliation and deprivation (Ndlovu-Getsheni
2013b:7). It is directed towards the knowledge of those people who bore the brunt of the

Volume 8 number 3 • September 2015 21

brutal legacies of slavery, colonialism and apartheid. The concept is intended to achieve
the total liberation of people in the developing world, who continue to live and suffer
under ‘Western and European global matrices of power’ (Ndlovu-Getsheni 2013b:7).
Maldonado-Torres (Torres 2006:114) explained the concept of a ‘decolonial turn’ as
follows: “The decolonial turn (different from its linguistic or the pragmatic turn) refers
to the decisive recognition and propagation of decolonisation as an ethical, political
and epistemic project in the twentieth century. The project reflects changes in historical
consciousness, agency, and knowledge and it also involves a method or series of methods
that facilitates the task of decolonisation at the material and epistemic levels” (Maldonado-
Torres 2006:114).
Anibal Quijano theorised about the four strands of coloniality, and the one which is
useful for this article is his concept of ‘the coloniality of knowledge’ (Quijano, 2000:220
and 2007:170).The aim of this type of coloniality is to underline the process through which
Europe and European theories, such as the theory of “comparative advantage”, are classified
as the unshared sphere of knowledge creation. This means that European narratives and
theories of development, such as the theory of comparative advantage, whereby African
countries are required to continuously produce and export raw materials ad infinitum, are
only valid and useful for Europeans, and are not feasible in developing countries such as
those in Africa (Suarex-Krabble 2009:8). Aime Cesaire (1972:84) vehemently denounced the
idea of universalising European theories of development while ignoring the socio-cultural
realities on the continent. This is how it is argued: “Provincialism? Absolutely not. I’ m not
going to confine myself to some narrow particularism. Nor do I intend to lose myself in a
disembodied universalism. There are two ways to lose one self: through walled-in segregation
in the particular, or through dissolution into the ‘universal’. My idea of the universal is that
of a universal rich with all that is particular, rich with all particulars, the deepening and co-
existence of all particulars” (Aime Cesaire 1972:84).
The Peruvian sociologist Anibal Quijano elaborated on the concept of coloniality of
knowledge, when he held that: “Europe’s hegemony over the new model of global power
concentrated all forms of the control of subjectivity, culture, and especially knowledge
and the production of knowledge under its hegemony” (Quijano 2000:220). He explained
further that this resulted in “simultaneous denial of knowledge production to the conquered
peoples and repression of traditional modes of knowledge production, and on the basis
of the superiority/inferiority relationship enforced by the hierarchical structure” (Quijano
2000:225).
The celebrated Nigerian intellectual, Claude Ake (1979:125) in his book titled Democracy
and Development argued that one of the reasons for the failure of development being
rooted in the African socio-cultural milieu is that the development paradigms and theories
implemented by policy makers on the continent are Euro-American concepts, which are
indifferent to the African condition. Ake’s (1979:125) narrative re-echoes the views of
the Kenyan intellectual, Ali Mazuri (1968:82), who expressed discontent at the inability
of Africans to disentangle themselves from the servitude of ‘alien paradigms’ or remove
themselves from what Karl Marx sees as “false systems of political, social and moral concepts”
created in order to maintain the knowledge domination of the leading world powers who
have controlled the world through slavery, colonialism, imperialism and now coloniality
(cited in Mazuri 1968:82). Ake (1979:125) hinted at the imperialist content and agenda of

22 African Journal of Public Affairs

the theories of development, which are embedded in ‘the social science paradigms’ and
knowledge propounded in Africa through the educational system that African countries
inherited at the time of their independence.

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE THEORY OF COMPARATIVE

ADVANTAGE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
FOR DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA
Fully incorporated into the thesis of Ricardo is the classical mindset of a British economist,
when England was already an industrialised country, in comparison to the situation in
Portugal (Boudreaux 2004:375; Irwin 1996:21; Buchanan and Young 2002:400). If one
closely examines Ricardo’s (cited in Irwin 1996:21) choice of products – wine (agricultural)
and cloth (manufactured goods) – it is clear that England will reap all the benefits of
international trade between it and the rest of the world, especially with regard to the poor
developing countries of Africa (Mehmet 1999:49). In considering the ramifications of this
theory for Africa’s development, it becomes apparent that the market is an unreliable tool for
the protection of jobs and alleviation of poverty in Africa (Mehmet 1999:49). If countries in
Africa implement the theory of Ricardo in its entirety and specialise in the continuous export
of raw materials, they will not reap the benefits of international trade and will continue
to be mired in endemic poverty, because countries such as England, which specialise in
manufacturing, will create more jobs, increase their revenue and ultimately enjoy the fruits of
globalisation and international trade (Boudreaux 2004:375; Jones 1961: 163; Buchanan and
Young 2002:400).
For example, Reinert (2008:106) has identified three main flaws in Ricardo’s theory. The
first shortcoming is that Ricardo formulated his theory without paying attention to historical
analysis, technological change, increasing returns and synergies that are involved in trade
(Irwin 1996:21). Secondly, like many who live in Africa already know, advancements
in technology will not allow cocoa producers on the continent to make more profit than
countries like Switzerland making chocolate and who add increasing returns to their business
(Reinert 2008:106). Finally, the fact remains that Ricardo’s theory is only applicable to
countries involved in manufacturing activities (Reinert 2008:106; Irwin 1966:21; Mehmet
1999:49). Developing countries in Africa which specialise in exporting raw materials are
ultimately specialising in poverty, according to Reinert (2008:106), as diminishing returns
will inevitably reduce the profit margin of poor countries. Colonialism and then globalisation
were premised on these flawed ideological views of Smith and Ricardo, and the effect of
colonialism on economic growth and development in Africa is apparent, as Africa remains
the primary producers of raw materials and natural resources, while the creation of jobs and
alleviation of poverty, which are the main tenets of development, have eluded the continent
(Harvey 2005:29).
One of the renowned classical economists, Adam Smith, enthused about the virtues of
international trade, and his theory greatly influenced David Ricardo’s theory of comparative
advantage (Machlup 1977:15; Roberts 2006:20). Smith’s assertion that international trade
will ultimately bring about development and prosperity for all nations was built on faulty
foundations (Smith 1999:35: Machlup 1977:19: Mehmet 1999:50). It has been proven to

Volume 8 number 3 • September 2015 23

be a false and hollow promise, as many people in Africa are still experiencing poverty
and underdevelopment, despite the hegemony of globalisation (Pezzoli 1997:560). Many
researchers in the field of development are aware of the intractable problems of poverty,
unemployment and underdevelopment, which are endemic in developing countries of the
world, especially those in Africa (Timberlake 1985:35; Morgan and Solarz 1994:65 Ukwandu
2014:235). Myint (1970:235) observed that David Ricardo was silent or maybe naive with
regard to the domestic impact of comparative advantage on poverty and employment in
a developing country that specialises in agricultural products, while developed countries
specialise in manufacturing and its ancillary benefits (cited in Mehmet 1999:50).
In reality, the theory of comparative advantage has a negative effect on job creation,
exacerbates poverty and is akin to specialising in poverty and underdevelopment (Ukwandu
2014:233). This happens because, as mentioned earlier, concentrating solely on exporting
raw materials will inhibit the ability of developing countries to add value to their resources,
which will in turn diminish the revenues accruable to the countries from exports (Ukwandu
2014:234). Mehmet (1999:50) demolished the basic assumptions of Ricardo’s theory,
suggesting that Ricardo’s analysis is static because it is based on constant costs, with no
gains for productivity that may arise from technological advancements, and that there is free
mobility of labour domestically, but not internationally. In conclusion, since the movement of
capital is free globally, England, and indeed most of the developed countries of the world, will
forever enjoy the comparative advantage inherent to manufacturing, which means more jobs
and more technological and industrial development. All these advantages of the developed
world in the global economy are to the detriment of poor and developing countries, such as
those in Africa, where the majority of people still suffer as a result of poverty and deprivation
(Mehmet 1999:50).
Another major limitation of Ricardo’s theory is that it is based on only two countries and
two commodities. The reality proves the irrelevance of the theory to development in Africa,
as the continent contains 53 countries which export many commodities to other countries of
the world. Since Africa trades with many countries and in different commodities, it is therefore
difficult for the theory to be applied to this continent (Machlup 1977:24; Roberts 2006:29).
In David Ricardo’s theory, the value of goods is shown in terms of the labour utilised in the
production of the goods. An interrogation of the labour theory of value by various economists
has revealed many flaws in this narrative (Mehmet 1999:50; Boudreaux 2004:375; Irwin
1996:28; Buchanan and Yoon 2002:400). In the real world, the value of goods and services
is expressed in monetary terms and not in terms of labour costs (Boudreaux 2004:375).
Another flaw of the theory of comparative advantage is that it overly concentrates on the
supply of goods and services, while ignoring the demand side of the equation (Mehmet
1999:50). In an African context, it is apparent that the theory is steeped in a colonial and
neo-colonial mindset and worldview, as it is geared towards the endless supply of mineral
resources from developing countries, with no mention of the demands or needs of those
countries (Ukwandu 2014:230).
In the author’s view, one immediately becomes aware of the weaknesses embedded in
the theory of comparative advantage, based on insights provided by Mehmet (1999:55),
and one can appreciate the argument of Reinert (2008:110) that countries which continue
to export raw materials without adding value to these materials will experience poverty
and underdevelopment for a long time to come. This is because these raw materials are

24 African Journal of Public Affairs

fluctuating around a boom-bust cycle, which results in the instability of foreign earnings
(Mehmet 1999:55). The Ricardian theory of comparative advantage is not useful to
developing countries of the world, especially those in sub-Saharan Africa, who have suffered
from what the Latin American intellectual Walter Mignolo (1995:8) called ‘the colonial
wound’. This refers to the period of massive exploitation on an unprecedented scale of the
developing countries of the world by the European colonial masters, who made little or no
effort to enhance the development of those countries which were located mostly in Latin
America, Africa and Asia.
There is massive poverty, unemployment and underdevelopment on the African
continent, even though the theory of comparative advantage talked about full employment.
The assumption of full employment shows its irrelevance to the socio-economic conditions
prevailing on the continent, as the costs of production and labour continue to change in
Africa, which has a very young demography. The theory is oblivious to the fact that African
countries are very dynamic and constantly changing, and these changes include the labour
force, capital, technology, and even the discovery of natural resources in these countries
(Ukwandu 2014:233).
The Ricardian theory underscores the virtues and benefits of free trade, and enthuses
about the unfounded idea of complete specialisation, whereby England will specialise
fully in cloth, while Portugal will specialise fully in wine. The fact remains that this type
of complete specialisation in international trade is unrealistic, and the narrative is therefore
based on economic myth and fantasy. When this theory is compared to the interests and
living conditions of people in many countries of sub-Saharan Africa, the weaknesses become
glaring. The German economist List (cited in Reinert 2008:106) offered timely advice when
he described the devastating effect of unfettered free trade, globalisation and specialisation
on poor and developing countries that do not yet possess the technical and manufacturing
wherewithal to compete with other developed countries. His warning was heeded in Asia,
first by Japan and later by South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and, more recently, Vietnam. It
would be a herculean task for countries in Africa to jumpstart economic growth, job creation,
poverty alleviation and meaningful development and transformation by fully adhering to the
tenets of Ricardo’s theory. This is how List (cited in Reinert 2008:106) expressed his doubts:
“Under the existing conditions of the world, the result of general free trade would not be a
universal republic, but, on the contrary a universal subjection of the less advanced nations to
the supremacy of the predominant manufacturing, commercial and naval power (developed
countries). A universal republic i.e. a union of the nations of the earth… can only be realized
if a larger number of nationalities attain to as nearly the same degree as possible of industry
and civilization, political and power” (Reinert 2008:106).
The dangers of an unguided and unregulated market during this age of globalisation, as
advocated by proponents of free trade and complete specialisation, such as David Ricardo,
were expressed by Polanyi (1957:73) and Harvey (2005). Polanyi (1957:73) warned about
allowing the market to control all facets of human life, especially for those who live in
developing countries of the world, such as those in Africa. He expressed his views as follows:
“To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their
natural environment, indeed, even of the amount and use of purchasing power, would result
in demotion of society. Robbed of the protective covering of cultural institutions, human
beings would perish from the effects of social exposure; they would die as victims of acute

Volume 8 number 3 • September 2015 25

social dislocation through vice, perversion, crime and starvation. Nature would be reduced
to its elements, neighbourhoods and landscapes defiled, rivers polluted, military safety
jeopardised, the power to produce food and raw materials destroyed. Finally, the market
administration of purchasing power would periodically liquidate business enterprise, for
shortages and surfeits of money would prove as disastrous to business as floods and droughts
in primitive society” (Polanyi 1957:73).
Rostow’s (1960) views contradicted the theory of David Ricardo, as he indicated that
foreign trade can only help to reduce poverty and accelerate development in underdeveloped
countries if those countries in the primary-producing sector are involved in the partial or
semi-processing of the primary product, through which they can maximise their profits
(Rostow 1960:56). This exposed the flaws in the narrative of Ricardo, and this practice of
setting African countries on the path of becoming perpetual exporters of raw materials can
be traced back to the period of colonial rule on the continent. During this period, British
colonial industrial development in African countries was designed to severely impoverish the
continent and its people. For example, in a country such as Ghana, fruits were harvested and
exported to Britain to be processed, bottled and subsequently re-exported back to Ghana
at a higher price (Offiong 2002:45). Cocoa was planted and harvested in Mozambique
and exported to Portugal, where it was processed and exported back to Mozambique as
chocolate (Offiong 2002:48). The same situation was found in varying degrees in Kenya,
Sudan and Ivory Coast, as well as most of colonial Africa. The fact that most African
countries during colonial rule were prevented from becoming involved in processing or
adding value to the natural resources produced in their countries contributed to the poverty
and underdevelopment of post-colonial Africa.
Myrdal (1956:27) argues that market forces will tend, cumulatively, to accentuate
international inequalities, and a quite normal result of unhampered trade between
two countries, of which one is industrial and the other underdeveloped, is the ignition
of a cumulative process leading to the impoverishment and stagnation of the latter. This
is another argument which accentuated the weakness of the Ricardian theory. Myrdal
(1956:28) is of the belief that international trade has some positives and negatives, and the
positives of international trade during the colonial era, even in the present global economy,
tend to accrue more to developed countries, while developing countries tend to accumulate
many of the negatives. In the case of colonial Africa, the only outcome of the trade was
unfavourable terms of trade between African colonies and their European colonial masters.
Mills and Herbst (2012:5) are of the view that it is very difficult for countries exporting only
commodities or raw materials to achieve development. This is because of the fluctuations
inherent in the prices of those commodities on the international market. Africa can only
achieve real development and reduce poverty and unemployment if the political leaders on
the continent find a way to add value to all the commodities produced in Africa.

THE SPANISH EXAMPLE: LESSONS FOR AFRICAN COUNTRIES

ON THE ROLE OF INCREASING RETURNS IN DEVELOPMENT
This narrative of adding value is brilliantly articulated by Reinert (2008:106), who stated
that countries which specialise in the export of raw materials will find it difficult to achieve

26 African Journal of Public Affairs

development because of the law of increasing and diminishing returns. The concept of
increasing returns will allow African countries to add value to the myriad of natural resources
available on the continent. Adam Smith alluded to increasing returns in his pin factory
analogy (Reinert, 2008:110). During the Middle Ages, Antonio Serra and Genovesi (cited
in Reinert 2008:115) expounded on the role of increasing returns in the economic growth
and development of parts of Italy, but emphasised that this has to be underpinned by good
governance, since it was good governance within the city states of Italy that facilitated the
growth of trade, commerce and investment, which led many of the city states to add value
to their natural resources, as well as increasing their earnings, thereby stimulating economic
growth and development.
Reinert (2008:106) gave an example of the rise and decline of Spain as incontrovertible
evidence of the cause of poverty in Africa. In 1558, Spain’s Minister of Finance, Luis Ortiz,
wrote the following to King Philip II (cited in Reinert 2008:108): “From the raw materials
from Spain and the West Indies particularly silk, iron and conchinilla (a red dye) which cost
them 1 Florin, the foreigners produce finished goods which they all sell back to Spain for
between 10 and 100 Florins. Spain is in this way subject to greater humiliations from the
rest of Europe than those they themselves impose on the Indians. In exchange for gold and
silver the Spaniards offer trinkets of greater or lesser value; but by buying back their raw
materials at an exorbitant price, the Spaniards are made the laughing stock of Europe” (cited
in Reinert 2008:108).
The incontrovertible idea embedded in this letter to King Philip is that a finished product
might cost up to one hundred times the price of the raw materials needed for the product.
As Reinert (2008:106) noted, if efforts are devoted to adding value to the raw materials
produced in Africa, many additional jobs and earnings could be generated. He explained
that between the raw materials exported and the finished products, there are numerous
economic activities that will help to reduce poverty, create employment and promote the
technological advancement that is usually associated with this process. Some of these
activities which Reinert (2008:115) mentioned include an industrial process that creates
a knowledge economy, mechanisation and improved technology, division of labour and,
above all, increasing returns. However, it is difficult for Africa to carry out these activities
because poor governance has not allowed those in power to find a way to improve the lot of
their citizens, due to the fact that the status quo favours them and their allies.
In light of the above, it can be argued that despite the abundance of natural resources in
Africa, it will be difficult for African countries to achieve development because if one takes
the concepts of diminishing and increasing returns into account, unless African governments
add value to their natural resources through increasing returns, the continent is doomed
to perpetual poverty and underdevelopment. However, adding value through increasing
returns is not possible without good governance, and this is why this study argues that good
governance is the missing link in Africa’s elusive quest for development. It is the practice of
good governance that will enable African governments to realise that their poor governance
is subjecting millions of Africans to penury and underdevelopment. In other words, good
governance plays a vital role in Africa’s elusive quest for development.
Mills (1848 cited in Ukwandu 2014:233) outlined the merits and demerits of increasing
and diminishing returns in the life of a nation in the following words: “I [comprehend]
the elimination of diminishing returns to be not only an error, but the most serious one,

Volume 8 number 3 • September 2015 27

to be found in the whole field of political economy. The question is more important and
fundamental than any other: it involves the whole subject of the causes of poverty… and
unless this matter be thoroughly understood, it is to no purpose proceeding any further in
our inquiry” (Mills 1848, cited in Ukwandu 2014:233).
There are modern advocates of the power of increasing returns, as opposed to diminishing
returns, as the key to alleviating poverty, increasing employment and ensuring subsequent
development for developing countries battling with poverty and underdevelopment, but
which wholly rely on commodities as their main source of revenue (Marshall cited in
Prendergest 1992:7; Krugman 1990:35). Marshall (cited in Prendergest 1992:7) argued that
diminishing returns is one of the main causes of poverty in the developing countries of the
world, as it focuses on a resource that cannot generate more wealth or jobs in the long run.
Mills’ (cited in Prendergest 1992:7) theory was given further credence by Marshall when he
suggested that the best development policy includes levying more taxes on activities with
diminishing returns, in order for the State to support and even subsidise those activities with
increasing returns. He also advised that nations which want to be developed and prosperous
should direct their production towards those activities in which technical and knowledge-
related progress are to be found (Prendergest 1992:7).
Thunen (2009:40) postulated that in a map of civilized societies, activities with increasing
returns are mostly located within the walls of the city, where there are different types of
economic activities that generate more wealth for the city and its inhabitants, thereby
facilitating the creation of jobs and reduction of poverty. He further explained that once one
moves away from the city center, the use of capital and technology to generate wealth and
employment decreases, and one is faced with activities with diminishing returns, such as
fishing, hunting etc., which depend on the vagaries of weather to be sustainable. The view
of Thunen (2009:40) is that as long as a society concentrates on activities with diminishing
returns, it is impossible to reduce poverty and unemployment, as there is no technical
progress embedded in these activities. He provides a template for African countries which
seek real development, but this is still difficult without good governance, as these countries
will continue to run into what Mills (1848, cited in Prendergest 1992:7) called ‘the flexible
wall of diminishing returns’.

THE NOTION OF INCREASING RETURNS AS A POSSIBLE

SOLUTION TO THE POVERTY, UNEMPLOYMENT AND
UNDERDEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA
According to the Economist magazine (2011), eight of the world’s top 20 fastest growing
economies of the past decade are in sub-Saharan Africa, and the list includes Angola,
Congo, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda and Tanzania. The major weakness of
the theory of comparative advantage is evident in the fact that if the theory was relevant to
African countries, the impressive GDP figures amassed by these countries would have led
to total and overall development in their economies. The fact remains that despite almost
a decade of economic growth, which relied heavily on the export of commodities; these
countries are still mired in abject poverty, unemployment and underdevelopment. The
reason for this is because they have been exporting their natural resources cheaply and

28 African Journal of Public Affairs

without adding value to those products, and it is impossible for real development to be
achieved under such circumstances. African solutions to African problems are timely and
much-needed in this scenario. It is the concept of adding value to natural commodities that
will help African countries to exorcise the triple demons of poverty, unemployment and
underdevelopment. The solution will come from neither Europe nor America, and will not
be found by uncritically adopting their epistemologies and development paradigms, without
tweaking them to conform to our socio-cultural milieus. This intellectual servitude will keep
the continent in economic limbo ad infinitum.
In critically examining the full consequences of David Ricardo’s theory of comparative
advantage from the decolonial perspective, it becomes very clear to policy makers,
researchers and intellectuals in Africa that it is possible, and indeed urgent, that we break free
from the shackles of European and American-centred theories of development, which are
inimical to the holistic development of the continent. It is time to chart a new and different
course of action. Africa must not continue to kowtow to every knowledge and insight dished
out by Europe and North America. It is time to rethink and re-evaluate the development
policies being implemented on the continent. Wallerstein (1991:3) elaborated on the benefits
to researchers and policy makers in the developing countries of the world, especially those
in Africa, of periodically reassessing their development policies and programmes. According
to Wallerstein, it is vital that we in Africa sometimes ‘unthink’ some of our hypotheses and
conjectures in view of the rapid changes taking place in the world. In his view, unthinking
the basic fundamentals of our economic and social ideologies is vital in an ever-changing
world (Wallerstein 1991:3). This is how he explained it: “It is quite normal for scholars and
scientists to rethink issues. When important new evidence undermines old theories and
predictions do not hold, we are pressed to rethink our premises. In that sense, much of
nineteenth-century social science, in the form of specific hypotheses, is constantly being
rethought. But in addition to rethinking, which is ‘normal’, I believe we need to ‘unthink’
nineteenth-century social science, because many of its presumptions which, in my view,
are misleading and constrictive still have far too strong a hold on our mentalities. These
presumptions, once considered liberating of the spirit, serve today as a central intellectual
barrier to useful analysis of the social world” (Wallerstein 1991:15).
It is evident that the solution to the myriads of developmental problems afflicting Africa
can only come from African intellectuals, policy makers and political leaders. National and
continental liberation and development will only be feasible when we water the seeds of
indigenous knowledge and find African solutions to African problems. Kwame Nkrumah
(cited in Oppong 2013:35), the first President of the independent Republic of Ghana,
articulated this view as follows: “We must seek an African view to the problems of Africa.
This does not mean that Western techniques and methods are not applicable to Africa. It
does mean, however, that in Ghana we must look at every problem from the African point of
view… our whole educational system must be geared to producing a scientifically-technically
minded people… I believe that one of the most important services which Ghana can
perform for Africa is to devise a system of education based at its University level on concrete
studies of the problems of the tropical world. The University will be the co-coordinating
body for education research… Only with a population so educated can we hope to face the
tremendous problems which confront any country attempting to raise the standard of life in a
tropical zone” (cited in Oppong 2013:35).

Volume 8 number 3 • September 2015 29

 The German intellectual List (cited in Reinert 2008:106) corroborated this narrative of
Nkrumah when he opined that countries which specialise only in the export of materials,
neglecting the policy of adding value to those commodities, will only be specialising in
poverty, unemployment and underdevelopment. Jobs can only be created when African
countries take a step towards adding value to the natural resources which they export, as
this will create the synergy needed for industrialisation. As a result of African governments
having neglected this principle and embarked on the unprecedented exploitation and
export of natural resources, as prescribed by David Ricardo and his fellow scholars,
economic growth has not translated into development in Africa. Africa can only create job
opportunities for its citizens when it starts to add value to the raw materials it is exporting
to the developed countries of the world. This concept of increasing returns, as List (1885,
cited in Reinert 2008:106) suggests, is an important principle of good governance, which
is absent in the African polity. The continuous export of raw materials without adding
value to them will only lead to Africa specialising in poverty and economic stagnation, and
what has been experienced in Africa after more than 50 years of political independence
validates this view.
The notion of adding value to natural resources or beneficiation has been a pivotal
component of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) since it came to power in South
Africa in the 1990s. This is evidenced by the two critical components of its manufacturing
and developmental policy:
“That developed countries exploit developing countries by buying cheap resources and
then adding value to their own benefit. Coffee and cocoa/chocolate are two commonly
quoted examples where the growers of the raw material receive very little relative to the
value of the final product. Often the exporters of the raw materials later import the final
product at much higher cost. The fact that many of our mines are foreign owned add to
the view that the true value of minerals is not received by South Africa” (cited in Eunomix
2015).
The role of beneficiation in kick-starting economic growth, job creation and poverty
alleviation was succinctly captured in the Industrial Policy Action Plan (IPAP, 2014/15–
2016/17) that was published by the South African government. The government advanced
its reasons for beneficiation and adding value to the country’s vast mineral wealth as
follows: “South Africa faces the challenge of diversifying away from mining and resource
extraction towards a manufacturing, value-adding and job-creating economy. Minerals
downstream beneficiation and minerals upstream (inputs) have been identified as a key
‘pillar’ of South Africa’s reindustrialisation push. The aim is to ensure that more value is
added to domestic mineral products before export, so as to extract greater economic
value and employment from the country’s remaining mineral resources, while at the same
time using minerals sector demand to develop mining input industries (capital goods,
consumables and services). Although South Africa is endowed with exceptional mineral
resources, further downstream and upstream beneficiation has not fully reached its
economic potential, mainly due to structural conditions within key value-chains” (cited in
Eunomix 2015).
This proves that there is no way in which Africans can benefit from the present economic
growth and development witnessed on the continent without adding value to the raw
materials that the continent is exporting to other countries of the world (Economist 2011).

30 African Journal of Public Affairs

David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage will leave African countries still desperately
poor, without jobs and development, in spite of the huge mineral wealth of the continent
(Bush 2007:25; Gordon and Wolpe 1998:55). It is time for policy makers and researchers on
the continent to chart a new and different course and implement policies that will unleash
the manufacturing potential of the continent and its people.
The salient role of adding value and how this will contribute to the development of the
continent can be seen in its multiplier effect on a tiny sector such as timber in South Africa.
Swart (Cited in Ukwandu 2014:234) explained that a piece of wood used for the back of a
shoe brush can sell for R1,60 at wholesale prices, but by adding value to the same wood
by including bristles, the same wood will retail at R16 in the store. In other words, there
is a 1000% increase in value. Many of the timber plantations in South Africa are forced
to sell their timber without adding value to it, since the cost of the machines needed to
undertake this task is very high, and without government support, it is impossible for them
to add value to the product, which would increase their earnings and even create more
employment opportunities. This lack of support by those in power in South Africa is found
throughout the continent and stymies development in Africa. It is much more convenient
for the policy makers on the continent to bemoan the evils of globalisation, colonialism and
apartheid, but no one has raised the important question of what politicians have done with
the resources available to them. Poor governance has not allowed Africa to take advantage
of the resources on the continent.

RECOMMENDATIONS
This article, in providing a decolonial critique of David Ricardo’s theory of comparative
advantage, endeavours to highlight a variety of limitations inherent to the theories of
development, which are not centered on the African context. The view helps to generate
development knowledge and paradigms that are cognisant of the needs and aspirations of
the continent, so that a solution can be found to the myriad of problems, such as poverty
and unemployment. Nabudere (2006:7) emphasised these goals: “Pursuing knowledge
production that can renovate African culture, defend African people’s dignity and
civilisational achievements, and contribute afresh to a new global agenda that can push us
out of the crisis of modernity as promoted by European Enlightenment. Such knowledge
must be relevant to the current needs of the masses, which they can use to bring about
a social transformation out of their present plight. As there cannot be such a thing as the
advancement of science for its own sake, those who pursue ‘science for its own sake’ find
that their knowledge is used for purposes, which they may never have intended it for”
(Nabudere 2006:7).
The celebrated Palestinian intellectual and a leading authority on post-colonial studies,
Edward Said (1978:16), supported Nabudere’s view that Western-centric knowledge and
epistemologies, such as David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, are not produced
for their own sake. Instead, their sole purpose has been the enslavement, exploitation,
control and administration of non-European populations. This is the main reason why the
decolonial perspective is a theory that is embedded in the total liberation of African people
from European intellectual tyranny.

Volume 8 number 3 • September 2015 31

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Auriacombe. C.J. 2012. Methodology Class Notes. Honours Methodology Unit 4. Johannesburg: University of
Johannesburg.
Abubakar, A. 1989. Africa and the Challenge of Development: Acquiescence and Dependency versus Freedom
and Development. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A. 2012. Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity and poverty. London:
Profile Books.
Ake, C.1979. Social Science as Imperialism the Theory of Political Development. Ibadan: Ibadan University Press.
Ayittey, G. 2005. Africa unchained: The Blueprint for Africa’s future. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Biko, S.B. 1978. I write what I like. London: Heinemann Publishers.
Boudreaux, D.J. 2004. Does Increased International Mobility of Factors of Production Weaken the Case for
Free Trade? Cato Journal, 23(4):373–379. Also available online at: [Link]
[Link] (Accessed on 15 January 2015).
Buchanan, J. M. and Yong, J.Y. 2002. Globalization as Framed by the Two Logics of Trade. Independent
Review, 6(4):399–405. Also available online at: [Link]
(Accessed on 10 January 2015).
Bush, R.C. 2007. Poverty and neoliberalism: persistence and reproduction in the global South. New York: Pluto
Press.
Carmody, P. 2011. The new scramble for Africa. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Cesaire, A.1972. Discourse on colonialism. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Eunomix Research. 2015. Beneficiation in South Africa: a first look at the economic impact of export taxes.
Available at: http. [Link]
[Link]. (Accessed on 20 March 2015).
Fanon, F. 1968b. Black Skins, White Masks. London: Gibbon and Kee Publishers.
Gordon, H. and Wolpe, H. 1998. The other Africa: An end to Afro-Pessimism. World Policy Journal, 15(1):49–58.
Grosfoguel, R. 2007. The Epistemic Decolonial Turn: Beyond Political Economy Paradigms. Cultural Studies, 2
(2/3):213–145.
Grosfoguel, R. 2011. Decolonizing Post-Colonial Studies and Paradigms of Political Economy: Transmodernity,
Decolonial Thinking and Global Coloniality. Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic
World, 1(1).
Harvey, D. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Irwin, D. 1996. Against the Tide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jones, R.W. 1961. Comparative Advantage and the Theory of Tariffs. Review of Economic Studies, 28(3):161–175.
Krugman, P. 1990. Rethinking international trade. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Machlup, F. 1977. A History of Thought on Economic Integration. New York: Columbia University Press.
Maldonado-Torres, N. 2006. Cesaire’s Gift and the Decolonial Turn. Radical Philosophy Review, 9(2):114.
Mazuri, A. 1968. From Social Darwinism to Current Theories of Modernization. World Politics. 21(1):69–83.
Mehmet, O. 1999. Westernizing the Third World: The Eurocentricity of Economic Development Theories.
London: Routledge.
Mignolo, W. 1995. The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality and Colonization. Michigan: The
University of Michigan Press.

32 African Journal of Public Affairs

Mignolo, W. 2005. The Idea of Latin America. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Mills, G. and Herbst, J. 2012. Africa’s third liberation: the new search for prosperity and jobs. Johannesburg:
Penguin Books.
Morgan, W.B. and Solarz, J.A. 1994. Agricultural crisis in sub-Saharan Africa: development constraints and
policy problems. Geographical Journal, 9(160):57–73.
Myint, H. 1977. Adam Smith’s Theory of International Trade in the Perspective of Economic Development.
Economica, 44(173):231–248.
Myrdal, G. 1956. Development and Underdevelopment. Cairo: National Bank of Egypt.
Nabudere, W.D. 2006. Towards an Africology of Knowledge Production and African Regeneration. International
Journal of African Renaissance, 1(1):7–32.
Ndlovu-Getsheni, S.J. 2012. Fiftieth anniversary of decolonisation in Africa: A moment of celebration or critical
reflection? Third World Quarterly, 33(1):71–89.
Ndlovu-Getsheni, S.J. 2013b. Perhaps Decoloniality is the Answer? Critical Reflections in Development from a
Decolonial Epistemic Perspective. Africanus: Journal of Development Studies, 43(2):1–11.
Offiong, D. 2002. Imperialism and Dependency: Obstacles to African Development. Enugu: Fourth Dimension
Publishers.
Oppong, S. 2013. Indigenizing Knowledge for Development: Epistemological and Pedagogical Approaches.
Africanus: Journal of Development Studies, 43(2):34–50.
Pezzoli, K. 1997. Sustainable development: A transdisciplinary overview of the literature. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 40(5):549–574.
Polanyi, K. 1957. Marketless trading in Hammurabi’s time. In Polanyi, K., Arensberg, C.M. and Pearson, H.W.
(Eds.). 1957. Trade and Market in the Early Empires. Illinois: Free Press.
Prendergast, R. 1992. Increasing returns and competitive equilibrium- the content and development of Marshal’s
theory. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 16(4):447–462.
Quijano, A. 2000. Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America. International Sociology, 15(2):215–
232.
Quijano, A. 2007. Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality. Cultural Studies 21(2–3):168–178.
Reinert, E.S.2008. How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor. London. Constable &
Robinson Ltd.
Ricardo, D. 1911. The principle of political economy and taxation. London: Dent.
Roberts, R.D. 2006. The Choice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Rostow, W.W. 1960. Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Publishers.
Schurink, E. and Auriacombe, C.J. 2010. Theory Development: Enhancing the Quality of the Case Study as
Research Strategy in Qualitative Research. Journal of Public Administration, 45(3):435–455.
Smith, A. 1999. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London: Penguin.
Smith, B. 2003. Principles of macroeconomic analysis. Melbourne: Australian National
Suarex-Krabble, J. 2009. Introduction: Coloniality of Knowledge and Epistemologies of Transformation. Kult,
6(7):1–9.
The Economist Magazine. 2011. The hopeful continent: Africa rising. Available at [Link]
news/special-report/21572377-african-lives-have-already-greatly-improved-over-past-decade-says-oliver-
august (Accessed on 10 January 2015).

Volume 8 number 3 • September 2015 33

The Economist Magazine. 2011. Africa’s impressive growth. Available at [Link]
dailychart/2011/01/daily_chart (Accessed on 10 January 2015).
Thunen, J.H.V. 2009. The Isolated State in Relation to Agriculture and Political Economy. In Van Suntum, U.
(Ed.). 2009. The Isolated State in Relation to Agriculture and Political Economy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Timberlake, L. 1985. Africa in crisis: the causes, the cures of environmental bankruptcy. London: Earthscan.
Ukwandu, D.C. 2014. The Role of Good Governance in Africa’s Elusive quest for Development. Unpublished
PhD thesis. Pretoria: University of South Africa.
Wallestein, I. 1991. Introduction: Why Unthink? In Wallestein, I. (Ed). 1991. Unthinking social science: The
limits of nineteenth century paradigms. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Wiredu, K.1996. Cultural Universals and Particulars: An African Perspective. Bloomington and Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press.
World Bank. 2010. World Development Indicators Database. Washington, DC: World Bank Press.

AUTHOR’S CONTACT DETAILS

Dr Damian Ukwandu
Post Doctoral Research Fellow
Department of Public Management and Governance
Faculty of Management
University of Johannesburg
Auckland Park
Cell: 073 2264202

34 African Journal of Public Affairs