AccessPlan Kenya Limited

Call Directions Website

AccessPlan Kenya Limited We are a management Consulting Firm, Which specializes in;

a) Finance & Accounting
b) Audit & Taxation
c) Merger & Acquisition
d) Business Plan

21/09/2026

AFRICA DOES NOT NEED WEAKER STANDARDS. IT NEEDS BETTER STANDARDS.

Why Kenya and Africa must have a stronger voice in the future of global reporting and regulation in IFRS Standards.

There is an important debate taking place within the global accountancy profession about the future of international standard-setting.

At its heart is a deceptively simple question:
When should a regulator intervene, and when should it exercise restraint?

Andrew Conway, CEO of the IPA Group, has challenged the profession to think more carefully about the cumulative complexity created by international standards, ethical requirements, sustainability reporting, assurance obligations, technology and regulatory overlays.

His argument is not an argument for weaker professional standards.

It is an argument for better standard-setting discipline.

From an African perspective, that conversation deserves even greater attention.

AFRICA DOES NOT NEED WEAKER STANDARDS.
Africa needs standards that are:

▪ Rigorous
▪ Proportionate
▪ Implementable
▪ Evidence-based
▪ Responsive to institutional capacity
▪ Designed with African realities at the table
Kenya has embraced global standards. Now it must help shape them.

Kenya has demonstrated a long-standing commitment to international financial reporting. IFRS has been part of Kenya's financial reporting architecture for decades, providing a common reporting language for businesses, investors, lenders, auditors and other users of financial information.

That commitment should not be questioned.
International standards have delivered enormous benefits. They improve comparability, transparency and confidence. They facilitate cross-border trade and investment and provide a common framework through which capital providers can assess businesses operating in different jurisdictions.

The IFRS Foundation now describes IFRS Accounting Standards as a global accounting language used across more than 140 jurisdictions.
But adoption is only one side of the equation.

THE HARDER QUESTION IS IMPLEMENTATION.

Can the smallest entity expected to comply with a requirement actually implement it effectively?

That question should be central to the future of international standard-setting.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONE REGULATION. IT IS THE ACCUMULATION.

A new reporting requirement may appear entirely reasonable when considered on its own.

The problem arises when it is added to everything else.

A Kenyan business may simultaneously confront:

▪ Financial reporting standards
▪ Taxation requirements
▪ Electronic invoicing
▪ Company law
▪ Employment regulation
▪ Data protection requirements
▪ Beneficial ownership requirements
▪ Anti-money-laundering obligations
▪ Sector-specific regulation
▪ Sustainability reporting
▪ Increasingly sophisticated digital compliance requirements

Each may have a legitimate public-interest purpose.
But businesses do not experience regulation one standard at a time.

They experience it cumulatively.
This is particularly important for small and medium-sized enterprises and small and medium-sized practices.

A multinational corporation may have technical accounting specialists, legal advisers, sustainability teams, sophisticated enterprise systems and substantial compliance budgets.

A small Kenyan enterprise may have a finance manager, OR perhaps one accountant responsible for almost everything.

The regulatory objective may be identical.

The implementation capacity is not.

That difference cannot simply be ignored.

PROPORTIONALITY IS NOT LOWER STANDARDS

There is sometimes a misconception that asking for proportionality means asking for lower standards.
It does not.

A rigorous standard can have a proportionate implementation pathway.

The public-interest objective should remain demanding.

What should vary, where appropriate, is the complexity and cost of the mechanism through which that objective is achieved.

This distinction is fundamental.
We should not ask whether SMEs deserve "lower-quality" financial reporting.

We should ask:

Can the same public-interest outcome be achieved through a framework that recognises an entity's scale, resources, risk profile and institutional capacity?

That is not deregulation.
It is intelligent regulation.

BEFORE CREATING A NEW STANDARD, ASK WHETHER ONE IS ACTUALLY NECESSARY.

This should become a central discipline of international standard-setting.

Before embarking on a new standard or major regulatory intervention, standard-setters should demonstrate:

1). EVIDENCE — Before Intervention

▪ What exactly is the public-interest problem?

▪ Is there reliable evidence demonstrating the problem?

2). GAP — Before Prescription

▪ Why can't existing standards address the issue?

▪ Why can't existing guidance, enforcement or professional judgement address it?

3). CASE FOR INTERVENTION — Why a New Mandate?

▪ Why is a new mandatory requirement superior to education?

▪ Could implementation guidance be sufficient?

▪ Would stronger enforcement address the problem?

4). PROPORTIONALITY — What Will Intervention Cost?

▪ What will the requirement cost different categories of entities?

▪ What will it require from practitioners and assurance providers?

▪ Will the burden be proportionate to the expected public benefit?

5). CUMULATIVE IMPACT — What Happens When It Is Added to Everything Else?

▪ What existing requirements will entities already be implementing?

▪ What additional systems, documentation, technology and training will be required?

6). IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY — Can It Actually Work?

▪ Can SMEs and MSMEs implement it?

▪ Can professionals operating in developing economies realistically support it?

▪ Is the necessary technology, data and assurance capacity available?

7). THE COUNTERFACTUAL — What Happens If We Do Nothing?

▪ What is the measurable public-interest harm of non-intervention?

▪ Is intervention genuinely necessary?
That last question is particularly important.
Regulators often examine the consequences of intervention.

They should also examine the consequences of non-intervention.

Sometimes the evidence will justify a new standard.
Sometimes it will point towards guidance.
Sometimes better enforcement will be sufficient.
Sometimes education is the answer.
And sometimes the evidence may demonstrate that further regulation is unnecessary.

The ability to reach that final conclusion is not regulatory weakness. It is regulatory maturity.

KENYA'S SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING TRANSITION ILLUSTRATES THE CHALLENGE

This debate is no longer theoretical.
Kenya is entering a new phase of corporate reporting through the adoption of IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards.

ICPAK launched Kenya's roadmap for adoption of IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards in 2024, and current Kenyan guidance provides for phased implementation.

This is an important development.
Sustainability-related financial information increasingly matters to investors, lenders, boards and other capital providers. IFRS S1, for example, focuses on sustainability-related risks and opportunities that could reasonably be expected to affect an entity's prospects, including cash flows, access to finance and cost of capital.

The question therefore should not be whether sustainability reporting matters.
It clearly does.

The better questions are:

▪ Which entities should report first?
▪ What information is genuinely decision-useful?
▪ Do the entities have systems capable of generating reliable data?
▪ Do their boards understand what they are signing off?
▪ Is there sufficient assurance capacity?
▪ Can SMEs and MSMEs realistically support implementation?
▪ What will compliance cost relative to the expected public benefit?

These questions do not weaken sustainability reporting.

They make its implementation more credible.

AFRICA SHOULD NOT MERELY ADOPT STANDARDS. IT SHOULD INFLUENCE THEM.

This is perhaps the most important lesson.
Africa has often approached international standards primarily from the perspective of adoption.

A global standard is developed elsewhere.
African institutions study it.
African regulators adopt it.
African professionals train on it.
African businesses implement it.
But there must be another stage.

African professionals must increasingly participate in shaping the standards themselves.
Africa represents a significant part of the global IFRS landscape. The continent's jurisdictions have extensive experience with IFRS adoption and implementation.

That experience is not merely local knowledge.
It is international evidence.

African economies can tell global standard-setters whether a proposed requirement works in environments characterised by:

▪ Large informal sectors
▪ Rapidly formalising SMEs
▪ Developing capital markets
▪ Uneven digital infrastructure
▪ Different levels of professional capacity
▪ Evolving regulatory institutions
▪ Limited assurance resources
▪ Significant differences between large corporations and smaller enterprises

These are precisely the conditions under which the scalability of an international standard is tested.
Africa should therefore move from being primarily a consumer of standards to a co-designer of those standards.

SMEs and MSMEs should be in the design room.
SMEs AND MSMEs SHOULD BE AN EARLY STRESS TEST

There is a recurring mistake in regulatory design.
The largest and most sophisticated organisations are often represented during the development process.

Smaller practitioners and businesses become heavily involved later, when implementation problems emerge.

That sequence should be reversed.
Before a proposed requirement is finalised, We need to ask:

▪ Can a small enterprise understand it?
▪ Can a small practice implement and audit it?
▪ What technology will it require?
▪ What additional documentation will it generate?
▪ What training will be required?
▪ What will it cost?
▪ Will it improve the quality of information or simply increase the volume of information?
▪ Will it produce genuine accountability OR encourage box-ticking?
▪ Will the requirement work outside the world's most sophisticated economies?
If the answer is no, then the standard is not yet sufficiently international.

HOW SHOULD WE MEASURE REGULATORY SUCCESS?

There is an institutional danger in measuring standard-setting by activity.

More consultations.
More amendments.
More standards.
More guidance.
More implementation material.
More compliance requirements.
These may demonstrate regulatory activity.
They do not necessarily demonstrate regulatory success.

The real measures should be outcomes:

▪ Did financial reporting improve?
▪ Did decision-useful information increase?
▪ Did investor confidence improve?
▪ Did audit quality improve?
▪ Did fraud risk decline?
▪ Did access to capital improve?
▪ Did comparability improve?
▪ Did the cost imposed on businesses produce a commensurate public benefit?

This is the difference between regulatory output and regulatory outcome.

The accounting profession should be much more interested in the latter.

THE ETHICS QUESTION DESERVES SIMILAR SCRUTINY

The global debate about the increasing complexity of professional ethical requirements raises another important issue.

No serious African professional should argue for weaker ethics.

Africa certainly does not need weaker professional ethics.

We need stronger:

▪ Integrity
▪ Independence
▪ Competence
▪ Accountability
▪ Public-interest responsibility

But there is a legitimate question about whether an ethical framework can become so extensive and technical that its practical accessibility is compromised.

The purpose of an ethical code should ultimately be to help a professional:

▪ Recognise an ethical threat
▪ Exercise sound judgement
▪ Apply appropriate safeguards
▪ Act in the public interest

TECHNICAL SOPHISTICATION IS VALUABLE.

But complexity should never become a substitute for ethical judgement.

A professional who understands the underlying principles and applies them honestly is ultimately more valuable to society than one who merely knows how to navigate a vast rulebook.

The objective should therefore be:

SIMPLE PRINCIPLES + RIGOROUS JUDGEMENT + CLEAR ACCOUNTABILITY + APPROPRIATELY DETAILED TECHNICAL GUIDANCE.

AFRICA'S REAL REGULATORY CHALLENGE IS IMPLEMENTATION CAPACITY

There is another uncomfortable truth.
Many African countries do not suffer from an absence of laws, regulations, standards and policies.

They sometimes suffer from a gap between rules and institutional capacity.

We can write sophisticated standards.
But standards require:

▪ Competent professionals
▪ Reliable data
▪ Functioning systems
▪ Effective boards
▪ Independent assurance
▪ Credible regulators
▪ Appropriate technology
▪ Enforcement capacity
▪ Institutional accountability

Without those foundations, sophisticated regulation can produce:

Sophisticated-looking compliance rather than genuine control.

That distinction matters.

A 100-page compliance report is not necessarily better than a 20-page report.

A highly sophisticated control framework is not necessarily effective merely because it is sophisticated.

A longer standard is not necessarily a better standard.

The real question is always:
DOES IT WORK?

A KENYAN–AFRICAN FRAMEWORK FOR DISCIPLINED STANDARDS & REGULATIONS

Perhaps Kenya and the wider African professional community should champion seven principles:

1). EVIDENCE — Before Intervention
Do not create a new requirement merely because an issue is fashionable, technologically novel OR attracting international attention.
Demonstrate the problem.

2). GAP — Before Prescription
Establish that existing standards, guidance, enforcement OR professional judgement are genuinely inadequate.

3). PROPORTIONALITY — Before Complexity
Design implementation around different categories of entities and different institutional capacities.

4). ALTERNATIVES — Before Mandates
Consider education, guidance, technology, enforcement and capacity-building before creating another mandatory requirement.

5). CUMULATIVE IMPACT — Before Approval
Evaluate the new requirement alongside the existing regulatory burden.

6). OUTCOMES — Before Activity
Measure whether the regulation actually improves reporting, governance, accountability and decision-making.

7). REVIEW — Before Permanence
Every significant regulatory intervention should be capable of being simplified, amended or withdrawn when evidence demonstrates that it is not achieving its intended purpose.

These principles would not weaken global standard-setting. They would make it more intellectually disciplined.

THE FUTURE IS NOT DEREGULATION. IT IS BETTER REGULATION.

There is an important distinction that should not be lost in this conversation.

The choice is not between regulation and deregulation.

The real choice is between:

▪ Good regulation and bad regulation
▪ Proportionate regulation and disproportionate regulation
▪ Outcome-oriented regulation and activity-oriented regulation

Kenya needs credible financial reporting.
Africa needs strong professional standards.
Investors need reliable information.
Boards need accountability.
Businesses need sound governance.
Capital markets need confidence.
None of this is controversial.

But the regulatory system should serve these objectives rather than becoming an objective in itself.

The ultimate purpose of accounting standards, auditing standards, ethical requirements and sustainability reporting is not to produce more rules.

It is to produce:

▪ Better information
▪ Better decisions
▪ Better governance
▪ Greater accountability
▪ Greater public trust
That should be the test.

AFRICA MUST HAVE A SEAT AT THE INTELLECTUAL TABLE

The next phase of global standard-setting presents Africa with an opportunity.

Not simply to ask:
“How do we comply?”

But to ask:
“How should the global system evolve?”

That is a much more ambitious question.
African professional accountancy organisations, regulators, universities, practitioners, businesses and policymakers should contribute evidence from African markets to the global standard-setting process.

Kenya, in particular, has the professional and institutional experience to contribute meaningfully to this conversation.

We should not approach international standard-setting as passive recipients.
We should approach it as professional partners.

The message from Africa should therefore be neither anti-regulation nor anti-IFRS.
It should be much more constructive:

We support high-quality international standards. But international standards must be capable of producing high-quality outcomes in the real economies in which they are expected to operate.
That requires:

▪ Evidence
▪ Proportionality
▪ Implementation capacity
▪ Continuous evaluation
▪ Listening to those who actually have to implement the standards

The future credibility of global standard-setting will not depend merely on its ability to respond to every new risk, technology or reporting demand.

It will depend on something more difficult:
The wisdom to know when to intervene, how far to intervene, and when not to intervene at all.

AFRICA DOES NOT NEED WEAKER STANDARDS.
IT NEEDS A STRONGER VOICE IN DESIGNING THE STANDARDS THAT GOVERN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY.

And Kenya should be part of that conversation, not at the margins, but at the table.

AUTHOR'S POSITION

The future of global standard-setting should not be designed only for the most sophisticated markets. It should be tested against the realities of the economies in which those standards must work.

Africa does not need weaker standards.
It needs a stronger voice in making global standards work.

AMOS NG’ONGO, CPA(K)
Governance | Public Policy Analyst
Kenya.

05/09/2026

WHY DOES AFRICA CAPTURE SO LITTLE OF THE VALUE GENERATED FROM ITS OWN RESOURCES?

A Thomas Sowell-Inspired Inquiry into Wealth Creation, Value Chains, Institutions and Africa’s Unfinished Economic Transformation:

Africa possesses extraordinary quantities of natural resources. It has oil and gas, copper, cobalt, lithium, gold, platinum, uranium, iron ore, bauxite, fertile agricultural land, forests, fisheries and some of the world’s most important reserves of strategic minerals.
Yet a paradox persists.

How can a continent possessing so much of what the modern global economy needs continue to capture such a relatively small proportion of the economic value ultimately generated from those resources?

The conventional answer is familiar: colonialism, multinational corporations, unequal trade agreements, foreign exploitation, capital flight and the continuing structure of the international economic system.

There is considerable historical truth in parts of that argument. But history alone does not adequately explain the present.

Nor does the existence of foreign capital automatically explain African underdevelopment. Capital goes where institutions permit it to earn a return. Technology follows incentives. Processing capacity follows infrastructure, skills, energy reliability, financing and market access. Investors respond to risk as much as they respond to resources.

This is where the intellectual framework associated with Thomas Sowell becomes particularly useful.
Sowell repeatedly challenged the assumption that economic outcomes can be understood simply by looking at who possesses resources at the beginning of a transaction. His broader economic reasoning directs attention toward incentives, institutions, trade-offs, productivity, knowledge and the mechanisms through which wealth is actually created.

The crucial question, therefore, is not merely:

Who owns the resource?

IT IS:

Who possesses the productive capacity to transform that resource into the greatest economic value, and why?

That is a much more uncomfortable question for Africa.

THE GREAT ECONOMIC MISUNDERSTANDING: RESOURCES ARE NOT THE SAME AS WEALTH

A mineral deposit beneath the ground is not yet wealth in the economic sense.

Neither is crude oil.

Neither is unprocessed cocoa.

Neither is a tonne of lithium-bearing ore.

Neither is a forest.

Neither is fertile agricultural land.

A resource becomes economically valuable through a chain of activities involving discovery, extraction, financing, transportation, processing, refining, manufacturing, technology, logistics, marketing, distribution and ultimately access to consumers.

The economic value generated at the beginning of that chain can be radically different from the value generated at the end. Consider the distinction between exporting raw agricultural commodities and producing finished food products.

The farmer may grow cocoa.
Another company may process it.
Another may manufacture chocolate.
Another may own the brand.
Another may control international distribution.
Another may own the retail network.

By the time the final product reaches the consumer, the original commodity may represent only one component of the final economic value.

The question is therefore not simply:

“How much cocoa does Africa produce?”

IT IS:

“How much of the global cocoa value chain does Africa control?”

That distinction is fundamental.

Africa does not necessarily suffer from a shortage of resources. It suffers, in many cases, from a shortage of value-capturing productive capacity.

SOWELL’S CENTRAL INSIGHT: WEALTH HAS TO BE CREATED

One of Sowell’s most important contributions to public economic reasoning is his rejection of simplistic zero-sum thinking. The assumption behind zero-sum thinking is that wealth is essentially a fixed quantity. If one person becomes richer, somebody else must necessarily have become poorer.

But modern economies demonstrate something very different.

Entrepreneurship can create new products.

Technology can increase productivity.

Capital investment can make previously unusable resources productive.

Infrastructure can reduce transaction costs.

Education can increase human productivity.

Competition can lower prices while improving quality.

Innovation can create entirely new markets.

Trade can enable countries to specialize according to comparative advantage and expand the range of goods available to consumers.

In other words:

The economic “pie” can grow.

This matters enormously for Africa and African Governments.

If African economic policy focuses primarily on distributing whatever wealth already exists, without simultaneously expanding productive capacity, the continent risks fighting over a relatively small economic pie.

The deeper development challenge is to increase the size of the pie while ensuring that Africans possess the capabilities necessary to capture a larger share of the value created.

BUT WE MUST ALSO DISTINGUISH WEALTH CREATION FROM WEALTH EXTRACTION

A serious application of Sowell's thinking should not become a romantic defence of every wealthy person, corporation OR market transaction.

There is an important distinction between wealth creation and wealth extraction.

Wealth creation occurs when economic activity produces goods, services, technologies or productive assets that increase overall economic value.
Wealth extraction can occur when economic actors obtain disproportionate returns through mechanisms that do not correspond to productive contribution.

Examples may include:

Corruption;
Monopoly privilege;
Political patronage;
Regulatory capture;
Fraudulent procurement;
Insider dealing;
Preferential access to public resources;
Artificial barriers to competition;
illicit financial flows;
Opaque licensing arrangements;
Politically connected access to land or natural resources.

Therefore, the question should not be:

“Are multinational corporations exploiting Africa?”

Nor should it be:

“Are African elites exploiting Africa?”

Both questions can sometimes be valid.

The deeper question is:

What institutional arrangements determine who creates value, who captures value, and who merely extracts value?

That is the question of political economy.

AFRICA OFTEN EXPORTS COMMODITIES AND IMPORTS VALUE

Perhaps nowhere is the problem more visible than in commodity markets.

Africa can export:

Ore
and import:
Refined metals.

It can export:

Crude oil
and import:
Refined petroleum products.

It can export:

Raw agricultural commodities
and import:
Processed food and branded consumer products.

It can possess:

Critical minerals

while foreign economies dominate the sophisticated processing, manufacturing and technological applications built around those minerals.

This produces a remarkable structural contradiction.
Africa may possess the resource, but another economy may possess the technology.

Africa may provide the labour and land, while another economy controls finance.

Africa may supply the commodity, while another economy owns the processing plant.

Africa may produce the material, while another economy owns the intellectual property.

Africa may export the raw product, while another economy owns the brand.

And Africa may eventually import the finished product at a substantially higher price.

The resource has therefore travelled through an economic system in which progressively greater layers of value have been captured elsewhere.

THE REAL QUESTION IS NOT “WHO TOOK AFRICA'S WEALTH?”

The historical question remains legitimate. But the contemporary development question must go further.

Suppose an African country discovers a massive deposit of copper, lithium, cobalt OR gold. What determines whether that discovery produces broad-based national prosperity?

Not the geological discovery alone.

Several additional questions immediately arise:

Who owns the extraction rights?
Who finances the project?
Who provides the technology?
Who builds the infrastructure?
Where is the mineral processed?
Where is it refined?
Where are intermediate products manufactured?
Where is the intellectual property located?
Who provides insurance and financial services?
Who controls shipping and logistics?
Who owns the international distribution networks?
Who owns the final brands?
Where are the corporate profits booked?
Where are the highly skilled jobs created?
Where does the tax base accumulate?
Where does the next generation of productive capital emerge?

These questions reveal something fundamental:

Resource ownership is only one component of economic sovereignty. A country can legally own its natural resources and still capture relatively little of the ultimate value generated from them.

THE RESOURCE CURSE IS OFTEN AN INSTITUTIONAL CURSE

The phrase “resource curse” is frequently used to describe countries that remain poor despite possessing abundant natural resources.

But perhaps the more useful question is:

Why does resource abundance sometimes produce weak development outcomes?

The answer frequently involves institutions.
Where natural-resource rents become concentrated in government, political competition can increasingly become competition for control over those rents.
Instead of entrepreneurs competing to create wealth, political actors may compete to control its distribution.
Instead of institutions rewarding productivity, they may reward political proximity. Instead of investment flowing toward productive activities, capital may flow toward activities offering privileged access.

The result is a dangerous transformation:

Politics becomes a mechanism for wealth acquisition rather than public stewardship.

This is precisely where the Sowellian emphasis on incentives becomes relevant.

People respond to incentives.

If institutions reward productive investment, more productive investment is likely to occur.

If institutions reward political connections, political connections become economically valuable.

If institutions punish entrepreneurship through unpredictable regulation and arbitrary taxation, productive capital becomes more cautious.

If corruption produces higher returns than innovation, corruption becomes economically rational for those operating within the system.

The problem is therefore not merely the moral character of individuals. It is also the structure of incentives within which individuals make decisions.

AFRICA DOES NOT ONLY HAVE A CAPITAL PROBLEM

African development discussions frequently emphasize the shortage of capital. That is real, But capital is not simply money waiting to be distributed.
Capital is also accumulated with productive knowledge, machinery, infrastructure, technology, organizational capacity and human capability.

A country cannot industrialize merely because someone transfers money into its banking system.

It needs the capacity to convert capital into productivity.

This requires:
reliable electricity;
transport infrastructure;
functioning ports;
digital infrastructure;
skilled labour;
predictable taxation;
enforceable contracts;
credible courts;
property rights;
competitive financial markets;
technical education;
research institutions;
efficient public administration;
transparent regulatory systems.

This leads to a deeper proposition:

Africa's development problem is not simply that it lacks resources or capital. It is that it has insufficient institutional and productive capacity to convert resources and capital into sustained high-value economic activity.

VALUE CHAINS ARE WHERE ECONOMIC POWER LIVES

The twenty-first-century economy increasingly rewards countries that control value chains, rather than merely countries that possess raw materials.

The highest economic returns may occur in:

RESEARCH → TECHNOLOGY → PROCESSING → MANUFACTURING → INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY → FINANCE → LOGISTICS → BRANDING → DISTRIBUTION → SERVICES.

Raw-material extraction is important. But it is only one layer.

The strategic objective for Africa should therefore not be to abandon resource extraction.

It should be to move progressively upward along the value chain.

This is the distinction between:

Resource-rich Africa

AND

Value-rich Africa.

The first describes geology.
The second describes economic capability.

THE ALIKO DANGOTE’S REFINERY OFFERS AN IMPORTANT AFRICAN LESSON

Africa's industrial transformation requires precisely this movement from exporting primary commodities toward developing domestic processing capacity.

The Dangote Refinery is an instructive example because it represents an attempt to move a major part of the petroleum value chain onto African soil.

The broader principle extends far beyond petroleum.

If Africa exports crude oil, it should increasingly develop refining capacity.

If it exports minerals, it should develop processing and refining capacity where economically viable.

If it exports agricultural commodities, it should build food-processing industries.

If it exports timber, it should capture more value through sustainable downstream manufacturing.

If it exports critical minerals, it should seek progressively greater participation in mineral processing and, where commercially and technologically feasible, intermediate and downstream manufacturing.

The objective should not be autarky.
The objective should be greater participation in the value chain control system.

BUT “LOCAL VALUE ADDITION” CANNOT BECOME AN EXCUSE FOR ECONOMIC INEFFICIENCY

This is where Sowell's emphasis on trade-offs becomes important. There is a temptation to conclude that every African commodity must be processed domestically regardless of the cost.

That would be another form of economic romanticism.
A processing plant requires:

Electricity;
Water;
Machinery;
Skilled workers;
Finance;
Technology;
Logistics;
Markets;
Maintenance;
Economies of scale.

If domestic processing costs dramatically more than international alternatives, forcing consumers to purchase expensive domestic products can reduce rather than increase welfare.

Therefore, Africa should not pursue value addition as a slogan. It should pursue competitive value addition.
The objective is not simply to process something because it is African.

The objective is to build industries capable of competing because they are productive, efficient and commercially sustainable.

That distinction is critical.

AFRICA MUST MOVE FROM RESOURCE NATIONALISM TO RESOURCE COMPETITIVENESS

National ownership of resources can be politically attractive. But ownership alone does not create productivity.

The more important question is whether national institutions can transform ownership into long-term productive wealth.

A government may own a mining company and still operate it inefficiently.

A private company may operate a mine efficiently while paying taxes, royalties and employing citizens.

The correct policy question therefore cannot simply be:

“Is the resource publicly, OR privately owned?”

It should be:

“Which institutional arrangement produces the greatest sustainable public value while preserving competition, accountability and productive incentives?”

That is a much more demanding question. It requires evidence rather than ideology.

AFRICA'S BIGGEST LOST OPPORTUNITY MAY BE HUMAN CAPITAL

Resources can be depleted.

Human knowledge can reproduce itself.

A mineral deposit may eventually be exhausted.

But a generation of engineers can train another generation of engineers.

A successful manufacturing company can create managers, technicians, accountants, designers, researchers and entrepreneurs.

A functioning industrial ecosystem can therefore produce institutional and intellectual capital beyond the original investment.

This is one of the most important dimensions of economic development.

The ultimate objective of resource exploitation should therefore not merely be:

“How much revenue did the government collect?”

It should also be:

“What productive capabilities did the country acquire?”

Did the country develop engineers?
Did local firms become suppliers?
Did universities develop research capabilities?
Did domestic manufacturers emerge?
Did financial institutions develop project-financing expertise?
Did the country acquire processing technology?
Did local entrepreneurs enter the supply chain?
Did the resource project create productive assets that survive after the resource itself declines?

If not, a country may have earned resource revenue without building an economy.

THE AFRICAN STATE HAS A DIFFERENT ROLE FROM THE AFRICAN ENTREPRENEUR

Sowell's framework also warns against assuming that government officials possess the knowledge necessary to allocate resources more efficiently than millions of individuals acting through markets.

The government has an indispensable role.
But that role should increasingly be understood as institutional rather than omniscient.

The government should establish:

the rule of law;
property rights;
competitive markets;
infrastructure;
education;
public health;
transparent licensing;
environmental standards;
competition policy;
credible regulation;
macroeconomic stability;
security.

But the government should be cautious about believing it can centrally determine every winning industry, every successful entrepreneur and every future technology.

The state should build the playing field where;
Entrepreneurs, investors, workers and innovators should have room to play.

THE REAL AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: WHY IS PRODUCTIVITY SO LOW?

This may be the most uncomfortable question of all.
Why can a worker in one economy produce several times the economic value of a worker performing apparently similar work elsewhere?

The answer is rarely that one human being is inherently more capable than another. Productivity is heavily influenced by the environment in which people work OR live.

A farmer with irrigation, mechanization, improved seeds, extension services, storage, finance and reliable transport operates under fundamentally different conditions from a farmer dependent on rainfall, manual labour and poor roads.

An engineer working with modern machinery, reliable electricity, digital infrastructure and functioning supply chains operates differently from an equally educated engineer working in an environment where basic infrastructure repeatedly fails.

Productivity is therefore partly an institutional achievement.

Africa's development challenge is consequently not simply to create more jobs. It is to create more productive jobs.

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF AFRICA'S VALUE GAP

There is another uncomfortable reality.

Some African elites benefit from the existing structure.
If a political intermediary can profit from a licensing arrangement, why would he necessarily demand a transparent competitive system?

If a politically connected company can obtain a procurement contract, why would it necessarily favour open competition?

If a government official can capture a resource rent, why would he necessarily support institutional reforms that eliminate discretionary power?

This creates what might be called the political economy of underdevelopment.

The problem is not simply that Africa lacks good policies. Sometimes people with power have incentives to prevent good policies from being implemented.

This is why institutional reform is so difficult within the African Governance context.

Economic transformation changes who benefits.
And whenever economic transformation changes the distribution of benefits, it also changes political incentives, OR reward systems.

AFRICA NEEDS TO ASK A DIFFERENT QUESTION ABOUT FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Foreign investment should neither be worshipped nor demonized.

It should be evaluated.

The correct question is:

What does the investment bring, and what does Africa retain?

Does it bring capital?
Technology?
Markets?
Management expertise?
Infrastructure?
Skills?
Export access?
Research capacity?
Supplier development?
Tax revenue?
Foreign exchange?
Long-term productive assets?

If the answer is yes across several dimensions, foreign investment can accelerate development. But if an arrangement merely extracts a resource, exports it, leaves environmental liabilities behind and creates limited domestic productive capacity, the developmental value may be much lower.

The objective should therefore be:

not foreign investment at any cost, but productive investment under credible rules.

AFRICA MUST STOP CONFUSING RESOURCE OWNERSHIP WITH ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY

Economic sovereignty is more sophisticated than legal ownership.

A country may own its minerals but depend on foreign technology to extract them.

It may own oil reserves but depend on foreign refineries.

It may grow agricultural commodities but depend on foreign processors.

It may possess critical minerals but depend on foreign countries for refining.

It may have millions of young people but import technical expertise.

It may have natural resources but borrow extensively to finance infrastructure.

It may have central banks and currencies but remain highly exposed to external financing conditions.

THEREFORE:

Economic sovereignty is not simply the right to own resources. It is the capacity to make productive choices about those resources.

And productive choice requires capability.

AFRICA'S FUTURE WILL DEPEND ON WHETHER IT CAN CONVERT RESOURCE RENT INTO PRODUCTIVE CAPITAL

Resource revenues can finance consumption.
Or they can finance transformation. This distinction may determine Africa's future.

A country can spend resource revenues on recurrent expenditure, political patronage and short-term subsidies.

Or it can convert part of those revenues into:

infrastructure;
education;
research;
industrial parks;
energy systems;
sovereign investment;
domestic capital markets;
technology;
agricultural productivity;
logistics;
strategic industrial capabilities.

The latter approach converts finite natural capital into renewable productive capital. That is the economic logic behind successful public resource-management strategies.

The real measure of resource wealth should therefore not simply be:

“How much did we extract?”

It should be:

“What did we build with what we extracted?”

AFRICA DOES NOT NEED ANTI-CAPITALISM. IT NEEDS BETTER CAPITALISM.

This is perhaps one of the most important conclusions that can be drawn from Sowell's intellectual framework.

The alternative to extractive capitalism is not necessarily socialism.

The alternative is competitive, productive and institutionally disciplined capitalism.

Africa needs markets that reward:

Innovation rather than political connections;

Productivity rather than rent-seeking;

Investment rather than speculation;

Competition rather than monopoly privilege;

long-term capital formation rather than short-term extraction.

This does not mean, government disappears.
It means the government becomes better at doing what only the government can do while allowing markets to perform functions they can perform better.

FROM RESOURCE-RICH AFRICA TO VALUE-CREATING AFRICA

The ultimate objective should therefore be much larger than increasing royalties, OR renegotiating mining contracts.

Africa needs a structural transformation.

From:

RAW MATERIALS → PROCESSED MATERIALS

From:

COMMODITIES → MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS

From:

FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY DEPENDENCE → DOMESTIC TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITY

From:

IMPORTED EXPERTISE → LOCALLY ACCUMULATED HUMAN CAPITAL

From:

RESOURCE RENTS → PRODUCTIVE CAPITAL

From:

POLITICAL PATRONAGE → COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE

From:

AID DEPENDENCY → INVESTMENT AND CAPITAL FORMATION

From:

RESOURCE OWNERSHIP → VALUE-CHAIN PARTICIPATION

And ultimately: from resource-rich Africa to value-creating Africa.

THE QUESTION AFRICA MUST NOW CONFRONT

Thomas Sowell's broader economic framework challenges us to look beyond intentions and examine outcomes.

It asks us to examine incentives rather than slogans.

Trade-offs rather than political promises.
Productivity rather than rhetoric.
Institutions rather than personalities.
And economic consequences rather than merely economic intentions.

Applied to Africa, this leads to a difficult but potentially liberating conclusion. Perhaps Africa's greatest economic problem is not that foreigners have discovered how to extract value from African resources.

Perhaps the deeper problem is that African economies have not yet built enough of the institutions, capital, technology, infrastructure, skills, competitive enterprises and financial systems required to capture more of the value themselves.

That is not an argument for ignoring colonial history.
It is an argument for refusing to allow history to become a permanent substitute for strategy.

The colonial period explains much about the structure Africa inherited. But it cannot explain every institutional failure of the twenty-first century.
Nor should Africa define its future exclusively through the injustices of its past. The objective must be transformation.

THE FINAL TEST OF AFRICAN ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY

The ultimate test is not whether Africa owns the largest reserves of cobalt.

It is not whether it exports the most cocoa.

It is not whether it possesses enormous deposits of lithium, copper, gold or oil.

It is not even whether African governments receive larger royalties.

The ultimate test is whether African societies can transform natural resources into human capability, productive capital, competitive industries, technological knowledge and rising living standards.

That is the real meaning of economic sovereignty.
A resource beneath African soil is merely potential.
Value emerges from what human beings are capable of doing with that resource.

And this brings us back to the central question:

Why does Africa capture so little of the value generated from its own resources?

Because possessing resources is not the same thing as possessing productive capacity.

Because extraction is not the same thing as transformation.

Because ownership is not the same thing as control of the value chain.

Because revenue is not the same thing as capital formation.

Because economic growth is not the same thing as economic development.

And because wealth is not simply something waiting to be divided. Wealth must be created.

Africa's historic challenge was to escape external domination.

Its contemporary challenge is more demanding:

to build the institutional, technological, financial and human capacity to create, retain and compound value at home.

That is not merely an economic project.
It is the unfinished project of African sovereignty.

WE NEED TO STOP LOOKING AT WHO OWNS AFRICA'S RESOURCES TO WHO BUILDS AFRICA'S CAPACITY

The most productive African debate should therefore move beyond the binary question of whether resources belong to Africans OR foreigners.

The more consequential question is:

Who possesses the capacity to turn African resources into African prosperity?

That question changes everything.

It moves the debate from grievance to capability.
From extraction to production.
From ownership to value creation.
From dependency to institutional capacity.
From political rhetoric to measurable economic outcomes.

And perhaps most importantly, it places responsibility where it ultimately belongs:

not only on the external world, but also on African institutions, African governments, African investors, African entrepreneurs, African universities, African professionals and African citizens.

Africa does not need permission to become prosperous. But prosperity will not emerge automatically from the abundance beneath African soil. It will emerge when African societies build institutions capable of transforming natural capital into productive capital, productive capital into industrial capacity, industrial capacity into technological capability, and technological capability into broad-based prosperity.

The resource is only the beginning.

Real wealth is the capacity to create value from it.
And that is where Africa's next economic revolution must begin.

— Amos Ng’ongo, CPA
Governance & Public Policy Analyst
Nairobi, Kenya.

Address

Maragwa

Opening Hours

09:00 - 17:00

Telephone

+254205212092

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when AccessPlan Kenya Limited posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category