With a shared currency, entrepreneurs like this Tanzanian vendor won't have to change money when selling their products in other countries. Photo: justCRONO (flickr).

Has the eurozone crisis made shared currencies passe? East African leaders don’t think so, and they’re looking to Europe for an example of what not to do.

Economic integration isn’t a new idea for the East African Community. Its five member states&mdashUganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, and Burundi&mdashalready have free movement of goods and labor, thanks to a customs union and, since last year, a common market (a type of trade bloc). According to EAC Deputy Secretary General Dr. Enos Bukuku, a shared currency would build on this by controlling price instability and exchange rate volatility among the states, writes In2EastAfrica. He says this would encourage businesses to invest and spur development in the region.

An EAC monetary union could face many of the same problems Europe has already experienced. Critics point out that the five EAC states’ economies differ greatly in size and scope. Kenya’s GDP is $31,408,632,915, while Burundi, with a fifth of Kenya’s population, has a GDP of $1,610,544,922, according to the World Bank. This could mirror the dynamic between powerful European states like Germany and the EU’s smaller states like Greece, as Tanzanian IMF head John Wakeman-Linn told The Financial Times. But EAC Secretary-General Dr. Sezibera doesn’t think this will be an issue. “If you look at EAC trade statistics, all the partner states have gained. I do not think Kenya will swallow up the other countries; it will only enrich the economic base of the community,” he said in an interview with The East African.

To the citizens who will be affected by these changes, the European Union’s tribulations are probably either unknown or seemingly distant, but EAC leaders are paying attention and believe that they can avoid Europe’s mistakes. At a round of negotiations in Uganda earlier this month, Bukuku said "For the eurozone ... maybe there wasn't well coordinated fiscal policy management and enforcement. If there are benchmarks that are agreed upon, it would be expected that the community would also agree on sanctions and enforcement mechanisms," reports The Christian Science Monitor. He also cited the issue of fiscal discipline and said that many of Europe’s problems are a result of the eurozone countries not having “lived up to what was in the treaty.”

Economists like the World Bank’s Paul Collier warn that a currency union could hurt East African economies, according to allAfrica.com. Others feel it’s simply inappropriate in the current economic climate; The Financial Times cites shrinking regional growth and depreciating currencies as discouraging indicators. But Wakeman-Linn disagrees, telling the newspaper that even if a common currency isn’t feasible, putting the necessary components in place could help East Africa:

“All the things that they need to do to achieve a common currency – integrate financial markets, trade policy, labour markets, capital markets, statistics databases, develop easy mechanisms for exchanging each others’ currencies – all of these things would be extremely valuable and would help develop the regional economy, and so these are things they should do.”

By revealing the cracks in the world’s financial systems, the global financial crisis has provided developing nations with a handy "What not to do" guide. EAC leaders are strong in their belief that a shared currency is possible, even if there are challenges along the way. “The monetary union is a possibility, not a dream,” Dr. Sezibera told The Financial Times. They originally hoped to implement the currency union by next year, a deadline that has proven to be overly optimistic.

With the lessons they’re learned from the euro’s failures, they hope to avoid some of the bumps along the way.

Margo Conner is a senior at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, majoring in international affairs. Read her other contributions to Global Envision.

The African Growth and Opportunity Act has generated many jobs in the clothing manufacturing sector, especially for women. Photo: Jenny Bussey Vaughan/Mercy Corps

Most Americans may have never heard of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, but their closets probably contain at least one article of clothing imported as part of it.

The act — AGOA, by its acronym — was passed by Congress in 2000. It’s a free-trade deal between the U.S. and a number of Sub-Saharan African nations that eliminates quotas and duties for certain goods. It allows African products to compete with those from other regions on a more level playing field on the U.S. market. 87 percent of these imports consist of petroleum and minerals, according to a report by the Council on Foreign Relations. That’s not all, though, as Florizelle Lizer, the assistant U.S. trade representative for Africa explained to the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Information Programs:

The main focus of our efforts and our capacity-building assistance related to AGOA has always been to promote new nontraditional and value-added exports from Africa like apparel, footwear, processed agricultural products and manufactured goods.

This is where you’ll find AGOA’s selling point for the average Joe or Joanna in one of its member states. It’s created tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs, and many of these new employees are women. Some of the largest gains are in clothing manufacturing. For a poor, landlocked country like Lesotho, clothing exports tripled and 50,000 new jobs appeared following its entrance into AGOA, according to a report by Lawrence Edwards and Robert Lawrence. It’s also helping to empower women by providing them access to a regular income, comments Zambia News Features.

There’s a catch, though: AGOA says the materials used to make products exported to the U.S. must be manufactured in the exporting country or, at the very least, in another AGOA state. But being able to manufacture fabrics on an industrial scale is a tall order for developing nations that don’t already have that kind of infrastructure. Luckily for them, another piece was added to AGOA a few years after it debuted. It’s called the Third Country Fabric Rule, and it allows African countries to import their fabric from other parts of the world, manufacture the finished product at home, and then export it to the U.S. under AGOA.

The Third Country Rule doesn’t quite sync up with AGOA, and must be renewed more frequently. AGOA itself isn’t up for revision until 2015, while the Third Country Rule is set to expire in 2012. In May, AllAfrica reported that the U.S. had said that "its market would no longer be accepting garments whose raw materials could have been sourced from outside the exporting country." Since then, a U.S. congressman submitted a bill to extend the Rule until 2015, though an article from Forbes argues that recent U.S. actions concerning AGOA constitute a kind of "benign neglect."

Not everyone is in favor of AGOA in its current state, though. Some call it a fig leaf for the oil industry or a cap on the growth of African manufacturing. U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is a supporter, but in a recent speech at the AGOA forum in Zambia she pointed out some of its shortcomings, according to Procurement News. She said African governments need to work on providing greater support to manufacturers — citing the example of an American business that chose to import from Vietnam instead of an AGOA because Vietnamese government subsidies meant that the factory there could churn out products more quickly. Clinton also criticized the fact that countries "export only a handful of the 6,500 products," eligible under AGOA, while "the most common export is still a barrel of oil." Others see the Third Country Rule as actually stunting the growth of local textile industries. It might be cheaper to import from Asia in the short run, but local businesses could suffer the long-term.

But in the minds of many, allowing the rule to lapse — or even threatening to let it do so — makes investors nervous and hurts countries’ long-term prospects. Here’s hoping congressional inaction concerning your clothing’s origin won’t cost an African woman the shirt off her back.

Margo Conner is a senior at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, majoring in international affairs. Read her other contributions to Global Envision.

Despite the economic growth in Gaza, many destroyed homes still haven't been rebuilt. Photo: RafahKid (flickr)

Despite the continued blockade on goods in Gaza, the area is experiencing its first period of economic growth since 2007, largely due to Egyptian policy changes.

New luxury hotels, a shopping mall, and dozens of schools are all signs of increased economic development and decreased dependence on Israeli goods since the blockade began four years ago, the New York Times reported in June. Jobs have been increasing and over 1,000 factories are up and running, according to Hamas. While the growth has put unemployment back below 25 percent and allowed the rebuilding of hundreds of homes, Gaza still struggles.

Electricity is inconsistent, leaving hospitals and schools vulnerable. In the last four years, the number of people living on less than $1.60 a day has tripled. Reliance on food aid remains extremely high and thousands of homes are not yet rebuilt. “For the vast majority in Gaza, things are not improving,” a Gazan medical student told the New York Times. “Most people in Gaza remain forgotten.”

Increased trade from Egypt has led to real improvements, but the blockade still inhibits development of meaningful infrastructure that improves lives long term.

Mexico City. Photo: Yetto (flickr)

Are the southern states of Mexico – Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca – getting left out of Mexico's economic growth?

An April 24 article in the Economist suggests that there is a growing socio-economic gap between these three southern states and the rest of Mexico. In 2000, Mexico’s GDP per capita was $7,495, compared to a combined average of $3,634 for Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca, according to a World Bank report. Furthermore, the percentage of people living in extreme poverty – less than $1 a day – was 54-56 percent in the south, compared to 23-25 percent nationwide.

Recently, the government has proposed using large-scale infrastructure projects to address this economic disparity.

In 2001, then-President Vicente Fox released his Plan Puebla Panamá, a project to link southern Mexico and Central America with northern Mexico. It primarily provides funding for building highways and new air and sea ports.

More recently, current President Felipe Calderón announced plans for a six-year, $28.7-billion road investment project. A significant part of the plan focuses on southern coastal regions.

Critics argue that investing in infrastructure isn’t enough to promote economic growth in the south. José Antonio Aguilar, a government official from the state of Puebla (another southern state), tells The Economist that they have experienced “a total transformation” in state infrastructure "but we haven’t been able to turn this into growth in income." Likewise, Miguel Pickard for CorpWatch.org worries that these top-down approaches tend to overlook Mexico’s poor.

To what extent will these ambitious infrastructure projects close Mexico's north-south poverty gap?

Muslims in Malaysia and elsewhere are boycotting Dutch imports in the wake of an incendiary Internet-posted movie by Dutch legislator Geert Wilders. The right-wing politician means to provoke with his 15-minute anti-Islamization movie, Fitna, which many say equates Islam with terrorism.

In Malaysia, where more than six of every 10 inhabitants are Muslim, the Foreign Ministry has strongly condemned the film. The Religious Council has also urged the boycott of Dutch products, saying it created unnecessary tensions.

One of Malaysia’s leading supermarket chains initiated a "soft boycott" in 40 stores by marking the products with red labels. The chain buys $18.8 million worth of Dutch goods a year, ranging from dairy products and cosmetics to electronics.

Malaysia's former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad said that a boycott would make the Netherlands "close shop" since the world's 1.3 billion Muslims make up the wealthiest population and are also the biggest importers. “We must not be afraid of losing trade with them. If we do, then we won't be thinking as Muslims, but more for our own self interests," he said.

The Dutch are fearful that the boycotts will affect their businesses. Malaysian dairy giant Dutch Lady Milk Industries took out full-page newspaper advertisements to denounce the film. Dutch businesses are even threatening to take legal action against Wilders if their businesses were affected by his film.

Oman, Jordan, Singapore, Pakistan and the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon are among others who have condemned the film.