Global food prices increased 1.2 percent in May, reaching their highest level since October last year. This upward trajectory is having a disproportionate impact in Africa, where the share of household income spent on food is also rising. To ensure food security, governments must work quickly to reverse these trends, and one place to start is by policing the producers who are feeding the frenzy.
According to data compiled by the World Economic Forum, four of the world’s top five countries in terms of food expenditure are in Africa. Nigeria leads the list, with a staggering 56.4 percent of household income in 2015 spent on food, followed by Kenya (46.7 percent), Cameroon (45.6 percent) and Algeria (42.5 percent).
By comparison, consumers in the US spend the least globally (6.4 percent), far less than people in emerging economies like Brazil (16 percent) and India (30 percent).
Illustration: June Hsu
One reason for the distortion is that the price of food relative to income. As Africa urbanizes, people are buying more imported semi or fully processed foods, which cost more than locally produced foods. And in most countries, wages have not kept pace with inflation.
However, the primary cause is poor public policy: African governments have failed to curb the power of agribusinesses and large food producers, a lack of oversight that has made local agriculture less competitive. In turn, prices for most commodities have risen.
The absence of antitrust laws, combined with weak consumer protection, means that in many countries, only two or three major companies control markets for items including salt, sugar, flour, milk, oil and tea.
The impact is most pronounced in African cities, where prices for white rice, frozen chicken, bread, butter, eggs and even carbonated soft drinks are at least 24 percent higher than in other cities around the world. These prices hit consumers both directly and indirectly (owing to pass-through of higher input costs by food conglomerates and service providers).
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has long argued that food security and fair pricing depends on markets that are free from monopolistic tendencies.
The Organisation for Co-operation and Development concurs and has frequently called on authorities to address “anti-competitive mergers, abuse of dominance, cartels and price fixing, vertical restraints, and exclusive practices” in the food sector.
And yet, in many African countries, this advice has rarely been heeded.
To be sure, this is not a new problem. Between 1997 and 2004, for example, the FAO counted 122 allegations of “anti-competitive practices” in 23 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Violations included a “vertical monopoly” in the Malawi sugar sector, price fixing in Kenya’s fertilizer industry and a “buyer cartel” in the Zimbabwean cotton industry.
Despite the considerable attention such cases have received, the underlying problems persist.
According to the World Bank, more than 70 percent of African countries rank in the bottom half globally for efforts to protect “market-based competition.”
While 27 African countries and five regional blocs have antitrust laws on the books, enforcement is rare. The remaining countries have no regulations at all and have made little progress in drafting them.
There is one notable exception: South Africa. Since 1998, the country’s Competition Act has prohibited any company controlling at least 45 percent of the market from excluding other firms or seeking to exercise control over pricing.
Violators face penalties of up to 10 percent of their earnings, and during the past two decades, some of the biggest companies in the country — including Tiger Brands, Pioneer Foods and Sime Darby — have been penalized.
As South African Competition Commission Commissioner Tembinkosi Bonakele said last year, the government is “determined to root out exploitation of consumers by cartels,” especially in the food industry.
Other countries should follow South Africa’s lead. Companies and special-interest groups will always seek to benefit from the absence of regulation.
The need for reform is greatest in countries like Nigeria and Ghana, where food expenditures are high and food-industry pressure is most pronounced. Fortunately, there is growing recognition of the need to address these challenges.
“In a large vibrant and loyal market such as Nigeria, the absence of broad competition regulation is tragic,” Nigerian Consumer Protection Council Director-General Babatunde Irukera has said. “Unregulated markets in competition context constitute the otherwise ‘legitimate’ vehicle for both financial and social extortion.”
Reducing the prices of staple food by even a modest 10 percent — far below the average premium that cartels around the world charge — by tackling anticompetitive behavior in these sectors, or by reforming regulations that shield them from competition, could lift 270,000 people in Kenya, 200,000 in South Africa and 20,000 in Zambia out of poverty.
Such a policy would save households in these countries more than US$700 million in 2015 US dollars each year, with poor households gaining disproportionately more than rich ones.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of political leaders to protect consumers from collusion and price-fixing. There is no question that Africa’s businesses need space to innovate and grow, but their success should never come at the cost of someone else’s next meal.
Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli is cofounder of AACE Food Processing & Distribution, managing partner at Sahel Consulting Agriculture & Nutrition, founder of LEAP Africa and a 2018 Aspen Institute New Voices fellow.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs