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.

Pakistan, known for its textiles, would like the freedom to sell these wares in foreign countries, not just in local shops. Photo: Benny Lin (flickr)

After environmental disasters, nations often rush to pledge relief aid. But how well-meaning are these donations? If countries were truly acting altruistically, they might also consider amending their trade policies, as Pakistani textile manufacturers argue in the Wall Street Journal.

In Pakistan, textiles are a major part of the economy. “The country's textile sector directly employs 3.5 million people, accounting for 40 percent of urban factory jobs,” writes the Journal. Overall, textile-product exports account for over half of Pakistan's total exports, so any restrictions placed on the sector have a significant impact on the entire economy.

As a result, the cost to Pakistani textile producers from U.S. barriers to trade is considerable, reports the Journal.

Abolishing American tariffs, which currently stand at an average 17 percent on cotton pants and shirts from Pakistan, would boost the nation's textile exports by $5 billion annually, government officials and factory owners estimate.

This sizable loss in income and the effect it has on the economy is integral to reforming Pakistan's economy. Neither the aid that Pakistan receives, in general, nor pledged aid in response to recent flooding, will be enough to lift Pakistan out of poverty, advocates say.

The recent flooding has profoundly impacted Pakistan and made this an opportune time to highlight grievances over the use of aid versus trade. Advocates for lowering trade tariffs are using the inflows of aid and heightened focus on rebuilding Pakistan’s soggy economy to show that most countries’ donations are inadequate.

The crux of their complaints is that the U.S and other donor nations could do far more to help countries such as Pakistan recover if they would stop restricting trade, allowing manufacturers and merchants to prosper and help the economy recover.

When put into perspective, using aid donations to signal support for development does ring a bit hollow, as these numbers cited by Global Issues demonstrate.

The total cost to developing countries of restrictions on textile imports into the developed world has been estimated to be some $50 billion a year. This is more or less equivalent to the total amount of annual development assistance provided by Northern governments to the Third World.

So, as the article continues on to say, “we take back with our left hand every cent we give with our right," a practice that has been understandably met with criticism in the developing world.

Surely the aid given to help ensure there is adequate food, water, and sanitation for flood victims doesn't go unappreciated. However, looking to the future — a necessary response to any disaster — some Pakistanis are calling on donor countries to reevaluate policy, not just pull out their pocketbooks.