G8 analysisDespite criticism, the $40 billion deal is positive, writes Marc Coleman, Economics Editor
When is debt relief not debt relief?
The G8 summit has agreed to $40 billion (€33 billion) in relief for 18 of the world's poorest countries, including Ethiopia, Ghana, Bolivia and Nicaragua. But there's a catch. While broadly welcoming the initiative, aid agencies such as Oxfam have criticised some aspects of the deal.
Aid agencies argue that, strictly speaking, this deal does not give debt relief to poor countries. Rather, it commits three so-called multilateral organisations, the IMF, the World Bank and the African Development Bank, to repaying the debts of those countries. But the countries who benefit will lose automatic aid entitlements from the same organisations.
They also point out that the proposed debt cancellation is far from total.
In the case of Ethiopia - recently stricken by a severe famine - only one third of outstanding external debt will be covered by the deal. The G8 agreement might have cast its net wider to embrace a more comprehensive range of creditors, say groups like Oxfam.
But some relief is better than none. And the countries involved in the deal can get back their lost aid entitlements by reapplying for them, provided they adhere to certain conditions. Its net effect appears to provide a conditional system of debt relief.
The G8 proposal is not the first attempt to cancel Third World debt. In 1995 the World Bank and IMF launched the Debt Initiative for Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) to cut the external debts of the world's poorest countries.
The HIPC agreement has also been criticised for slowing debt relief by imposing too many conditions on participating countries.
Africa's debt problem arose from excessive borrowing in the 1970s and 1980s.
At that time rising commodity prices gave African countries an income supply that could fund debt. At the same time OPEC countries were awash with oil revenues that they wished to invest outside of recession-hit western economies. The result was a lending bonanza that ended in a nightmare.
By the mid-1990s Africa's average debt levels had reached about 160 per cent of GNP. As a result, many African countries found themselves spending more on debt repayments than on health, education or poverty relief.
Criticisms aside, the deal is a positive one in removing one of the obstacles to poverty reduction and growth. There are others.
Research by Standard and Poor's credit rating agency has criticised the debt relief proposal. Many of the 18 countries qualifying for the relief have insufficient reforms in place to benefit from it.
Ongoing debt relief for poor countries is just the first of several steps required to tackle global poverty. Before it can aspire to anything approaching prosperity, Africa first needs to be able to profit from the production of primary goods of the kind that created the basis for European prosperity. This is the key to developing a thriving private sector of the kind that can generate the savings, expertise and inward investment needed to create a cycle of economic growth.
In addition to the need to reduce their own trade barriers, these countries face a raft of domestic obstacles. Some - such as an unfavourable geographical position and climate in the case of Africa - are insurmountable.
Others are surmountable. By directing the windfall of debt relief at tackling problems such as political instability, corruption, administrative failure and poor education systems, the beneficiaries of the G8 agreement can maximise the chances of it not being in vain.