Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Why has the Kenyan Shilling declined so sharply?

Africa Can... - End Poverty

How would you feel if, after a normal take-off, you noticed one of the engines on your plane wasn't working properly? What if you then found out the other engine was overheating? Now suppose the captain announces that you should buckle-up because the plane is about to meet an approaching hurricane?


This is what Kenya's economy is currently going through. The country is in the middle of a perfect storm, and the declining Shilling is the most visible manifestation of Kenya's economic woes. Why has the Shilling been falling so much and so unpredictably?


The main reason is that Kenya's economy is increasingly imbalanced: the country is importing too much and exporting too little.

This makes it vulnerable to shocks.  The gap between imports and exports needs to be financed by financial inflows other than export earnings. In 2011, imports have soared (mainly due to higher oil and food costs), while exports remained stagnant. The gap between imports and exports, also called current account deficit, now stands at above 10% of GDP – one of the highest in the world! Today, Kenya's main exports don't even earn enough to pay for its oil imports, not to mention other imports beyond oil (figure)!  The money to pay for any additional imports needs to come from somewhere.


Figure – Since February 2011, Kenya's top exports can't pay anymore for its oil imports (click on figure to see it larger)
 
Source: Simulations by Jane Kiringai and John Randa, Kenya PREM; Data points reflect 12 months moving averages


The money won't come from manufacturing exports:  that is Kenya's weak engine. Manufacturing stagnated a long time ago in Kenya, though it has been the driving force of other successful emerging economies. Ten years ago, manufacturing accounted for 11 percent of Kenya's economy–and it is the same today, despite a decline in the share of agriculture from 30 percent to 25 percent. Kenya's growth has been in services, particularly transport and telecommunications, reflecting the resurgence of Kenya Airways and Kenya's telecom revolution.


If you import a lot, you need enough dollars to pay for these imports.  Ideally, exports will give you everything you need. When exports aren't enough—which is the situation in Kenya today-- the gap needs to be filled through other financial inflows, including remittances, private investment, and support from development partners. In Kenya, over the last six months, the share of short-term flows has increased substantially. This "footloose capital" makes Kenya even more vulnerable to shocks. It often just takes a single event – even if it is completely unrelated to Kenya – to prompt these short-term flows to leave the country as quickly as they came in.  This is Kenya's overheating engine.


A weakening Shilling is not necessarily bad for Kenya's economy. It can help to rebalance Kenya's economy in the medium term, by making imports more expensive and exports more competitive in the countries where those exports are bought, thus adding to export earnings. Unfortunately, in Kenya, high inflation has been eating away some of the benefits that it would get from a weaker exchange rate, thus creating additional pressure on the Shilling. If investors, local and international, think their money will lose its value in Kenya very quickly – which happens when inflation is high – they tend to move it to countries where it will hold its value over the medium-term. If policy makers are not careful, Kenya could well end-up in a vicious cycle where high food and fuel prices lead to higher inflation, which in turn weakens the exchange rate, which raises the cost of imports, which further increases inflation.  This would be a bad outcome for Kenya.  Even if international food and fuel prices decline – which they did since August – inflation can still go up: indeed, it reached a new peak at 17.3 percent in September.


The economic storm which was already brewing in the first half of 2011 has now reached full force and has accentuated Kenya's structural weaknesses. The turbulence in Egypt meant fewer tea exports to one of Kenya's main markets. The subsequent struggle in Libya increased global oil prices and the import bill. Now, the next storm is approaching and it could become a hurricane, not just for Kenya: the Euro crisis and the apparent helplessness of European policy makers to deal with it, is having repercussions across the world, including Africa. Two of Kenya's key exports and foreign exchange earners, tourism and horticulture, still depend largely on European markets. Flowers and vacations are luxury goods, and are among the first purchases that Europeans will cut-off if they go into a full-fledged economic crisis.


What should the pilot do if one engine is failing, the other one is overheating, with the plane tilting, and a hurricane is approaching?  Here's what not to do: adopting strategies that have demonstrably not worked in the past, such as adopting price controls or establishing parallel currency markets, which have proven to be disastrous in many countries—including here in Kenya—and we need to avoid these proven mistakes this time around.  If I were in that plane, I would want the pilot to bring it down quickly and safely. While on the ground, the engines could be repaired and adjusted, as the hurricane passes by; it will take you longer to get home, but you will live to reunite with your family.


There are many measures that the government can take to get Kenya's "economic plane" safely on the ground. One of them has been taken by the Central Bank last week when it increased benchmark interest rates from 7 to 11 percent.  This can contribute to controlling inflation and the next weeks will tell if this measure was sufficient. The risk is that it will also cool the economy. While unpopular, such measures are needed to reestablish Kenya's macroeconomic credibility and help the economy in the medium-term. This is the price to pay in order to retain investments and avoid a crash. 

Sent with Reeder


Met vriendelijke groet,
Best regards,
Henk J.Th. van Stokkom.
(mailed from my mobile)

Malaria vaccine set to save millions of lives, but who will fund it?

Global development: Poverty matters blog | guardian.co.uk

As the malaria vaccine continues to prove sceptics wrong, the next obstacle for the World Health Organisation is cost

Malaria is a mass killer, taking just under 800,000 lives a year. Most of them are babies and children under five. A significant number are pregnant women. It is an entirely preventable disease, caused by a parasite transmitted by mosquito bite, but the millions who live under its curse are too poor and have too few options to be able to avoid it.

The malaria vaccine that now appears to be within reach, following successful large-scale trials in seven African countries, is a potential game changer for the rural villagers whose children are the main victims of this ancient disease, which was named "mal'aria" for the bad air medieval Italians thought caused it.

Early results from 6,000 babies aged 5-17 months show that their risk of malaria was reduced by slightly more than half (56%) and their chance of severe malaria – the kind that affects the brain, kidneys and blood and often kills – by slightly less than half (47%).

Malaria is so common in sub-Saharan Africa that families think any fever in a baby must be the killer disease. Too often it is, and the hospitals are full of listless babies with vacant eyes on drips.

Vast numbers of bed nets impregnated with insecticide have been provided by donors and distributed in malaria-endemic regions. Every small child and pregnant woman should sleep under one to keep away the mosquitoes in the night. New drugs – compounds involving artemisinin – have been developed and widely distributed to replace older antimalarials, which have been failing as the parasite develops resistance to them.

Malaria deaths have come down from more than a million to an estimated 780,000 a year, according to the latest report from the Roll Back Malaria partnership of the World Health Organisation. Three countries were certified malaria-free in the past four years, and nine more are preparing to move towards elimination – but that is out of 108 where the disease is endemic.

Since bed nets are not always effective, and not always used as they should be – there have been reports of some employed as fishing nets – and drugs can become ineffective, a vaccine could massively improve children's chances.

While researchers started work on a potential Aids vaccine with extraordinary and, as it turned out, misplaced optimism, many in the scientific community thought a malaria vaccine was a non-starter. Nobody had ever made a vaccine against a parasite-borne disease.

Twenty-five years on, a clutch of indomitable scientists – veterans such as Joe Cohen, who has been on the case for the past 23 years – has proved the sceptics wrong. According to Andrew Witty, chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline, the British company that has developed and trialled the vaccine, there were tears among the team when the results of the large-scale trial results came out. "It was the emotion of what they had achieved," said Witty. "The first vaccine against a parasite-borne infection. They were overwhelmed."

The results show conclusively that it is possible to prevent many cases of malaria in babies aged 5-17 months. Most of these children still got malaria, but less frequently and less severely. There were 750 cases for every 1,000 vaccinated children over a year, compared with 1,500 cases for 1,000 children among those who were given dummy injections.

That could make a big difference in sub-Saharan Africa. There are 200m cases of malaria every year. Many children are damaged – sometimes brain-damaged – by it. Even stopping half of those cases would save millions of lives over the long term. But there is a way to go yet, with more results from the trial to come, and many uncertainties, including how much this vaccine will cost and who will be persuaded to pay.

The trial is continuing in seven countries: Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania. It is big: there are 15,460 babies and infants involved. The data published so far in the New England Journal of Medicine concerns 6,000 of the older babies, those aged 5 to 17 months. Next year, results are expected for newborns, which are crucial, because the three-dose vaccine, which needs cold storage, must be incorporated into the routine infant vaccination schedule. All the signs are, though, that the response in newborns will be similar.

A bigger question is over the duration of the protection, which appears to have dropped from 47% to 35% for cases of severe malaria after 22 months. Some of the babies will be given a booster, to see whether this helps. While most side-effects were similar in children given the vaccine and given dummy jabs, there were significantly more with meningitis among those given the vaccine. "There seems to be no plausible explanation for this and it may well turn out to be a chance finding, but it cannot be ignored," wrote malaria expert Prof Nick White in a commentary otherwise warmly welcoming the vaccine to the armoury of weapons against the disease.

Most of those involved with malaria will agree with White when he continues: "All the investigators who have laboured long and hard in the development and evaluation of this malaria vaccine deserve congratulations. It is a great achievement and an important advance, but they know that this partially protective vaccine is not the sole solution to the control and elimination of malaria."

In three years' time, when the final results are in and the WHO has recommended its use, the scientists may hit the biggest stumbling block of all: money to roll it out. At a press conference to discuss the results, Dr Regina Rabinovitch, director for infectious diseases at the global health programme of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, was asked whether they would fund it. They would want to look at the data on efficacy, duration and safety in 2014, she said. "Would I prefer to see a 100% vaccine? Certainly," she added.

The arguments over value for money will be starting even now. Donors will want to figure out whether bednets or artimisinin drugs are a better investment than a vaccine that will reduce the number of malaria cases but not stop the disease in its tracks.

Price will be a critical factor in these considerations. Witty says they will do everything they can to get it down. He is looking at the costs involved in manufacturing and supply – even at the price of the vial. He is prepared to offer licences to get the vaccine produced cheaply in India or in Africa itself.

"I have got every confidence that we can get this price to a level that makes it very viable for donors to consider," he said. "I don't want people to think this is an alternative to bed nets. This is about doing all we can to shut the door on malaria."

He recalls the children's hospital wards he has seen in Africa, overwhelmingly full of malaria cases: "If you could take that burden away, imagine what the health capacity would be."


guardian.co.uk © 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Sent with Reeder


Met vriendelijke groet,
Best regards,
Henk J.Th. van Stokkom.
(mailed from my mobile)

Timely nudges could address Malawi’s increasing agricultural woes

Innovations for Poverty Action Blog

We first suggested "nudges for development" as a replacement for Malawi's renowned, but costly, farm input subsidy program (FISP) back in December.  It looks like the idea could be even more relevant now that the program is shrinking.

We look to what research results can offer as a potential alternative– one that is sustainable and won't be as costly for the Malawian government, which spent about 20 billion kwacha (currently US$121 million) on FISP during the 2010/11 fiscal year. This figure made up a sizeable 6.7% portion of Malawi's total budget of 297 billion [Source: Malawi Budget Statement (pdf)].  Donors, too, are seeking alternatives: "We are currently considering options for new support to agriculture in Malawi," Andrew Massa, a communications officer for UK's Department for International Development (DFID), stated to IRIN. DFID backed 5% – half of donor support – of the program's overall cost of 23 billion kwacha, and may be looking for more effective strategies.

Maize is the main food crop for Malawians

Maize is the main food crop for Malawians, over 80% of whom are subsistence farmers

How about a free one? The gains from a farm input subsidy can be mimicked for next to nothing with well-timed nudges to purchase unsubsidized fertilizer vouchers. Offering vouchers shortly after harvest, when farmers have more cash on hand, can help them commit to purchasing fertilizer for the next season.

A study implemented by Esther Duflo, Michael Kremer, and Jonathan Robinson showed that such a program was very popular in Kenya, increasing fertilizer usage to an extent similar to that achieved by a 50% fertilizer subsidy – but at a much lower cost. The intervention was so successful that IPA has included it in our Proven Impact initiative as a trusted program for development. Read about the study and check out the evidence.

Sent with Reeder


Met vriendelijke groet,
Best regards,
Henk J.Th. van Stokkom.
(mailed from my mobile)

Five Investments You Can Skip

SSIR Opinion & Analysis

It seems like every week a new report is released calling for nonprofits to adopt a practice or increase investment in yet another area of their organization. The list of things a nonprofit must do to be effective is now miles long and ridiculous.

As a leader of one of the largest capacity-building organizations in the country, I want to let you in on a little secret. You can ignore nearly all these findings and best practices.

Nonprofit consultants and the industry's media are largely to blame for this proliferation of noise. It is not due to bad intentions. It is simply a natural outgrowth of specialization, survival and marketing.

Consultants become specialists (in social media, strategy, governance, and so on)—and they need clients to survive. Unfortunately, some turn to the tried and true marketing formula of: think up a potential "next big thing," tell a few success stories, share a few supporting trends about adoption, and make the case that if you don't keep up with the Jones's and hire them, your nonprofit will get left behind. The media eats it up, the consultant gets speaking gigs at conferences, and pretty soon their practice or idea or approach is accepted as fact. But it isn't.

Our sector wastes an insane amount of time implementing best practices that have painfully low—if not negative—return on investment (ROI).

Here are five examples:
1) Volunteers. Recruiting and managing volunteers generally isn't worthwhile unless you use at least 50 per year, they do at least 50 hours of service each (or fewer volunteers and more hours each), and you invest in volunteer management systems. Short of that, it's almost certainly a waste of time.

2) Websites. Most nonprofits (the small neighborhood ones) would likely be fine with just a Facebook page. A template site would do the trick for slightly larger group. Only 25 percent of nonprofits need customized web design.

3) Board. There is a tremendously high fixed cost to training your board to facilitate donations (in kind or cash). If your board can't generate a large part of your budget (say, 20 percent), you are likely to find them getting in the way of fundraising success and eating up senior staff time (and increasing burn out). If that's the case, your organization would likely see more success with a smaller board focused solely on audits and the legal requirements of governance.

4) Social Media. Does it drive your advocacy, fundraising, or program success? It does for likely less than 2 percent of nonprofits. Everyone else is wasting a ton of time and energy on it. Much like my local car wash that urges me to "like" it on Facebook.

5) Strategic planning. You need a strategic plan, but for most organizations it can be a lot lighter than most MBAs want to admit. It doesn't need to be perfect and frequently should be more of a living document.

My bottom line advice is that you should only invest in things you need to achieve your goals and be very careful of anything that you should do. If you are not positive which category an investment falls into, don't ask a consultant. Ask your peers about their experience.


image Aaron Hurst is the founder and president of the Taproot Foundation, a nonprofit organization building a national pro bono marketplace and leading the global service movement through its award-winning Service Grant program. Widely known for his thought-leadership in civic engagement, nonprofit management and corporate social responsibility, Aaron is an Ashoka and Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation fellow and has been formally recognized as a social innovator by the Aspen Institute, Social Venture Network, Fast Company, Commonwealth Club, the Manhattan Institute, the State of California, and the Alliance for Nonprofit Management. Aaron currently sits on the International Advisory Board of Directors of CiYuan, a three-year initiative to increase social investment in China, and serves on the boards of Reimagining Service and BoardSource. He co-authored the children's book Mommy and Daddy Do It Pro Bono and is a featured blogger for The Huffington Post.

Sent with Reeder


Met vriendelijke groet,
Best regards,
Henk J.Th. van Stokkom.
(mailed from my mobile)