President Barack Obama’s November 6 visit to India has brought to the fore the long-running issue of what development philosophy is. Ahead of Obama, Larry Summers, Obama's economic policy point-man grappled with whether China’s Beijing Consensus or India’s Mumbai Consensus was better for the rest of the developing world. Brazil’s success over the years has seen millions of Brazilians move out of poverty and build an economy in which the middle class is the majority. We can safely say there is Sao Paulo Consensus in South America.

Africa is the only place without a notable developmental Consensus distilled from within itself. This is partly attributable to the dominant Washington Consensus that has been dictating development doctrine for the developing world since 1989. The Washington Consensus set specific economic policy prescriptions such as legal security for property rights, fiscal discipline, tax reforms, interest rates that are market determined, liberalization of inward foreign direct investment, privatization of state enterprises and competitive exchange rates, among others, that constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-ridden developing countries by Washington, D.C. based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The above discipline based prescriptions were virtually imposed without considering each country’s situation.

Summers message is clear: If the Beijing Consensus and Mumbai Consensus exist, where is the African Consensus? As Michael Schuman (of the USA-based Time magazine) explains, while “some believe that China's state-heavy, semi-market economy - or “state capitalism” is the ideal model for developing countries, Summers thinks that: “Instead, a Mumbai Consensus based on the idea of a democratic developmental state, driven not by a mercantilist emphasis on exports, but a people-centered emphasis on growing levels of consumptions and a widening middle class” is ideal.

Generally, the Beijing and Mumbai models tinker with the Washington Consensus to their innate traditional values and histories, and, in the process, have “boasted an incredible record of alleviating poverty, building industry, creating jobs, and translating economic power into political power.” The ability to mix their traditional values with the global prosperity ones is not new to Africa. Botswana has done this and is doing fine. But of concern here is the need for an African Consensus.

In wrestling with either Washington Consensus or the Beijing Consensus, Summers opts for the Mumbai Consensus – “a third way not based on ideas of laissez-faire capitalism that have proven obsolete or ideas of authoritarian capitalism that ultimately will prove not to be enduringly successful.”  Both China and India have not abandoned the principles of the Washington Consensus but have appropriated them into their innate traditional values and mixed both ideals reasonably well for their progress. China’s traditional Confucianism mixed with a dose of communism and capitalism, for example.

All the ingredients for an eventual African Consensus exist - culture; regional economic communities; the over one billion African people market; and the African Development Bank among others. Ex-Ghanaian President John Kufour bemoans African leaders’ unwillingness to integrate their economies.Fifty years ago, African founding fathers such as Kwame Nkrumah passionately promoted Pan-Africanism, among its striking attributes, as means of uniting Africa politically and economically. But African leaders are yet to appropriate it for greater progress. Regional blocks such as ECOWAS are on the ascendency but the direction towards a continental African Consensus such as China’s or India’s cannot be seen on the African development radar.

How can an African Consensus happen when majority of Africans in the traditional, informal sector, where most of the wealth is located and entrapped, as the rapid expansion of the mobile phone phenomena across the continent shows, aren’t factored in when policies are being created?

The ability of African leaders to midwife an African Consensus will be a response to Summers’ views and an answer to Michael Schuman wearily asking, “India vs. China: Which is the best role model for the developing world?”  While India or China may be of admirable development footnote to Africa, of importance is the lesson that their successes is partly driven by their core traditional values that drives their mentality, discipline and work ethic. As Schuman indicated, “every up-and-coming poor nation wants to “be like China.” Why not? But how Africa will be like China or India involves clear substantial thinking from within African traditional values by Africa’s leaders.

While China may have its own unique history, India’s has a bit of Africa’s – European colonialism. African states were founded on ex-colonial Western development paradigms that didn’t adequately factor in African cultural values. The Beijing and Mumbai Consensus moved beyond the dominant Western paradigms by re-orientating their development ideals, drawing from their cultural tenets, and establishing responsible leadership. 

So, what’s a better model for Africa’s progress?  The Mumbai Consensus or the Beijing Consensus? The best model for Africa isn’t either, but the one from within Africa. But occasionally, Africans could draw lessons from the Chinese and the Indian models. It is such new thinking that will help grow the real African Consensus, and open the way to the renewal of Africa’s progress.