The Politics of Neoliberal Reforms in Africa: State and civil society in Cameroon

4. The Neoliberalising Cameroonian State and Private Capital Accumulation

73 4 The neoliberalising Cameroonian state and private capital accumulation Introduction Faced with deep and prolonged economic and political crises, African governments have been compelled by international financial institutions and donors to adopt neoliberal reform packages. Some of the major tenets of neoliberalism are the call for less and better government, usually framed in terms of ‘good governance’, and the promotion of both domestic and foreign private enterprise, which should act as the motor of economic growth and development. Despite converging tendencies, the outcome of this neoliberal agenda appears not to have been uniform because of variations in the neoliberal policies of the different African regimes and the existing structures of economic and political power. This study focuses on Cameroon and explores the continuities and changes in the relations between state and private capital accumulation as a result of neoliberal globalisation. Curiously, although there is a growing body of literature on neoliberal globalisation in Africa in general, and Cameroon in particular, its effects on private capital accumulation and statecapital relations appear not to have been widely studied (Pitcher 2002). This is surprising because, since the 1970s, there has been a lively debate on these issues in Africa, especially in Kenya, inspired by the dependencia theory (Leys 1994). The dependistas (the majority) sought to show that African private capital was weak economically and politically, and that the subsequent alliance between the African ‘comprador’ elite and foreign capital was responsible for the drain of capital from the periphery to the metropolis. The anti-dependistas, in contrast, argued that while private African capital was relatively weak, it had grown significantly and relatively quickly after independence thanks to close links with 74 The Politics of Neoliberal Reforms in Africa the state apparatus, and could be expected to become still stronger. Although the dependency-inspired literature suffered serious limitations in theoretical and empirical terms, it has had the merit of drawing the attention of researchers to the importance of statecapital relations in the process of capitalist development. Of all the neoliberal policy prescriptions, two – namely privatisation and global open markets – appear to have had the greatest effect on relations between state and private capital accumulation in Cameroon and in many other parts of Africa. Privatisation called for a re-evaluation of relations between public and private sectors on the continent. Under pressure from international donors, African governments have been urged to reduce the scope of state ownership and enhance private-sector development. International donors tended to attribute the massive growth of state enterprises after independence and their generally poor performance to the ‘bad governance’ of African neopatrimonial regimes. They claimed that statist conceptions of development resulted in the widespread politicisation of economic decisionmaking and the rent-seeking behaviour of the parasitic political elite. Their criticism is undeniably justified to a certain extent but, as I have argued elsewhere (Konings 2004a), it tends to underestimate the importance of a series of other factors responsible for publicsector expansion. The view that the state should be the prime motor of development was widely shared in the 1960s, and ownership and intervention by the state were accepted as the dominant development paradigm. Public-sector expansion was also encouraged by the fact that, at independence, Africa’s economies were characterised by a weak and subordinate domestic private sector and foreign control. Most post-colonial governments tried to forestall the development of a national bourgeoisie, which they regarded as a potential political threat, and to reduce foreign dominance. Attaining greater ownership and control of the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy would enable them to influence the broad direction of national development. Subsequently, the parastatal sector came to be viewed as ‘national patrimony’ and sales to foreigners were regarded negatively. And, last but not least, state expansion was an essential element in the maintenance and 75 Chapter 4: The neoliberalising Cameroonian state and private capital accumulation consolidation of power of African neopatrimonial regimes. It created ample space for patronage politics that laid a solid foundation for co-opting the various ethno-regional factions into the ‘hegemonic alliance’ (Bayart 1979) and thus secured a considerable measure of political stability for the post-colonial state. Paradoxically, as this chapter attempts to demonstrate, most of these factors continue to influence the privatisation process in Cameroon. Privatisation has been slow, not only because of numerous technical constraints but also because of the regime’s neopatrimonial logic. It has often been marked by a lack...