Skip to main content

Can the G8 help Kenya increase trade?

A recent experience brought to life for me some of the issues facing developing countries trying to improve tax collection. I have lots of family in Kenya, and a few days ago, my dad received the news that a cargo of furniture and other household goods that he'd shipped over was about to arrive at the port. To my surprise, he promptly booked a plane ticket to Kenya, and explained that he thought it might be cheaper for him to fly to Kenya to try ot get it to Nairobi quickly than to leave the container at the port – as he would be charged high costs for each day that he left it there. Evidence suggests these extra costs can mount up to over 40% of total logistics costs.

But before I began lamenting Kenya's trade policy, I recalled a seminar that I'd attended a few weeks ago at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.  The seminar was entitled "Transparency: Tackling Poverty at its Roots", and was opened by Mark Simmonds, the Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and chaired by Michael Anderson, the Prime Minister's Special Envoy for the UN Development Goals. 200 civil servants from all over Whitehall attended, and others from Moscow, Paris, Cape Town and Kinshasa dialled in.

I had gone along to the seminar to hear more about the rationale for the UK's plans to promote transparency by governments and companies at the G8 Summit in June this year. I wanted to know whether the panellists thought transparency could really reduce poverty in developing countries.

During the seminar, one of the panellists Paul Collier, an economist most famous for his book The Bottom Billion (though my personal favourite is Wars, Guns and Votes) gave an unusual explanation for why he thought transparency was so critical to poverty reduction.

He began by noting that many developing countries, particularly in Africa, impose high trade tariffs, duties and other costs at their ports. This is why my dad had to rush to Kenya. However, Collier explained that this isn't just because the countries don't like trade or want to protect their local industries. He said it often comes down to the fact that trade taxes are easiest to track and collect compared to other types of tax, such as income and value-added taxes. Many countries have a narrow tax base, which in turn creates an incentive to rely on trade tariffs and duties to meet their spending needs.

The coast is clear at Kenya's Mombasa port, credit: NazarethCollege, 2009

Collier therefore suggested, rather than pushing such countries to reduce their tariffs, that they should be helped to raise revenues from other sources. And a key means could be more transparency by companies.

Many large companies often have complex structures. These exist for many good management reasons but they can also be associated with tax avoidance. Though not illegal, aggressive tax avoidance indicates some effort to circumvent norms and rules put in place by countries for social benefits. Complex, opaque company structures can also be associated with wrongdoing, such as corruption and money-laundering (also known as "illicit flows").

Coordinated action by G8 countries to increase transparency around the ownership of companies could help reduce the potential for tax evasion and wrongdoing. Coordinated action could also help identify when companies aren't paying enough taxes. This will mean that developing countries have the chance to collect more company taxes and reduce their incentive to rely on trade-related revenues. The UK Prime Minister argued in a speech in Davos earlier this year that making tax more fair and predictable can be good for business – creating a level playing field and providing governments with more tools such as cheaper trade to enable the private sector to grow.

My colleagues in HMT, BIS and DFID are currently considering, along with the UK's G8 partners and other stakeholders, the best mechanism for achieving greater transparency by companies and governments – for example, how information should be gathered and to whom it should be made available. If you have any views, please set them out in the comments below!

It's worth also noting that over the weekend, DFID's Secretary of State Justine Greening announced that the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation will, at its first-ever Ministerial later this year, aim to build consensus beyond the G8 on actions to help developing countries raise more tax.

In the meantime, I'm hoping my dad manages to pick up his goods at the port in Kenya soon.  And I'm hoping there will be more seminars to help me and other policy makers better understand how agreements by the G8 and Global Partnership can really make a difference to development.

Sharing and comments

Share this page


  1. Comment by Gitau Mburu posted on

    Read about what UK and others are doing to help trade in Kenya, and the East Africa region, by visiting A past World Bank report once likened Kenya's economy, and the drag that an inefficient port in Mombasa puts on it, to "a plane flying on a single engine". Hopefully through this work, we can make Kenya and the region more competitive, and reach cruising speed on both engines soon!

  2. Comment by planB4fashon - John Robertson posted on

    Last I heard, trade through Lagos was uninsurable.

    I think this is an example of how poverty and instability feed on each other; I hope I am out-of-date and Nigeria is now stable enough to prevent piracy and theft at the docks, at least from containers!

    A good way to increase stability is not to reduce taxes, but to increase them in a smart way.

    An EU import tariff that rewarded countries human rights and for poverty-reduction such as national insurance schemes, girls' schools, and pensions would soon change the mood of decision-makers in Ethiopia or Nigeria. At best, the effects would be the beginnings of a welfare state in those countries, a reduction in the population explosion that comes of urban poverty, and a fairer deal for manufacturers in Europe.
    At worst, in a country like Somalia, high tariffs might not lead to any kind of national insurance or welfare state, nor stability, nor greater human rights. But they would at least pay in tax revenue for EU countries to provide aid.

    Oddly enough, I am surprised how much consensus I see when writing about aid and trade. Only a few decades ago, comments from London where I live about Africa would have got a Mugabe-like response. Now, when I read other comments that people make on news items on Al Jazeera or in The Guardian about the Bangladeshi factory disaster, I see people taking a more person-to-person view than a nation-to-nation one. They ask: why can't people in Bangladesh have a welfare state too? Isn't it cynical of westerners with their safe factories and benefits to buy from Bangladesh? Times change!
    John Robertson

  3. Comment by Utamu posted on

    Transparency, as Hannah's explained, plays a role; my concern is how key is this role to tax collection? In other words, is transparency the main difficulty that is posed to developing nations when it comes to collecting more tax?

    Regardless, one wonders whether an opening up of other avenues for tax revenue collection would result in a decrease in reliance on trade tariffs as intended, or just an increase on public spending. IMHO the latter (an inevitability), at the former's expense, would not help the private sector grow by making trade cheaper. It may perhaps help Private Sector grow by increased market demand should this extra expenditure go to public procurement rather than social benefits though. However, probably not in making trade cheaper.

    In summary, as far as Transparency & 'Poverty's Roots' go, is the relation between tax collected and poverty reduced in developing countries that strong? Strong enough to be a root-level approach to development & poverty reduction?

    I understand the panellists are experts nonetheless I admit my skeptism.