One of the most difficult yet overly simplified ideas in economics is the economic growth of nations. Economists and pundits seem to always analyse by analogy, connecting dots backwards to define unique or even random experiences of developed nations and claiming that they developed because of certain economic policies they pursued. The truth is that we know very little to certainly tell what or how countries achieve economic growth. Often, developed countries experience booms and bursts, or even the periods under which their economies experienced fast growth are always disparately distributed, with different characteristics and sometimes similar characteristics that never guarantee growth.
China is a good example to illustrate this point. It is a country famous for pursuing socialism, yet today, there is argaubly growing worry that China, a socialist country, is fundamentally restructuring the capitalist world in ways never before imagined. How is a communist country now being accused of hyper-capitalism? Isn’t this a big irony?
Back to China Town in Uganda; a hypermarket that opened in September and saw an overflow of customers who flocked to it in droves, driving the police to close it down for some time because of the security threat from the mob of buyers that had crowded the parking space at its Lugogo location.
Some critics have expressed fear and warned that China Town spells doom to local entrepreneurs in downtown Kampala who are losing business opportunities because all customers are now flocking to the China store to buy goods at astronomically low prices.
Some have observed it as the newest trend highlighting an already existing, broader issue of global capitalism, where multinational corporations undermine local economies.
I would not interpret or understand China Town as comparable to Western multinational capital at the helm of global capitalism because I see human agency both from Africans/Ugandans and Chinese traders to enter a mutually beneficial trade relationship. This is different from the state-centric phenomenon that exploitative multinational corporations often come with. I think this is also related to the common misinterpretation of all ‘‘Chinese’’ activities under the umbrella of ‘‘China.’’ For instance, industrial parks in Uganda established by the government are usually mistaken for Chinese enterprises because they are constructed with the support of the Chinese. But there is a difference between “made in China” and “made by Chinese.” The point is to have domestic industries, and what makes them domestic is that they serve the interests of the nationals, are run by nationals, and the value of the products is domestically harvested. Even if there are Chinese advisers in the industrial parks, it would not make them Chinese industries.
The question to answer about the China Town phenomenon is: Whom does the China Town business serve?
Droves of customers flock to the supermarket because they are voting with their feet and wallets and are saying, “This serves our interest!”
True, many traders in Kikuubo and Kamapala road may be losing business to China Town, but they are also selling foreign goods, imported at the cost of depleting our country’s foreign exchange reserves. The only debate they can have is as regards customer satisfaction, and it seems customers are not satisfied with paying expensively for “fake” products from Ugandan traders, yet they can buy similar products at half the price in China Town.
I would have argued differently if the fake products sold by Ugandan traders were Ugandan goods because then I would have the understanding that we need to support Indigenous innovation and support domestic manufacturing if it is to improve over the years and give us better products while also growing the size of our economy through manufacturing. But this is not the case.
Local traders in Kikuubo, as President Museveni has emphasized to them often, are simply Ugandans who promote foreigners to leach on Uganda because they are very content with investing their money in importing instead of supporting local manufacturing.
The alternative viewpoint I have on China Town is that it might actually be the engine that supports the growth of the Ugandan Economy in some ways.
How?
By providing Ugandans with affordable high-end goods such as electronics, stationery, and other items needed to perform work more effectively, China Town is likely to greatly improve the productivity of workers by availing them tools to efficiently work and increase output.
This cannot be said of expensive shops in Kampala which many Ugandans cannot afford to buy from to improve their work efficiency and general living conditions, yet they are also importers of foreign goods.
In conclusion, I am not claiming certainty of knowledge as far as predicting what the transformative factors for Uganda’s economy will be. But in analysis, local traders have no locus standi to accuse China Town of affecting the economy. The economy is built by Ugandans who go about their work, and they need tools to work. What is wrong with them buying those tools quite cheaply from a China Town supermarket?
The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Center.