AHC: Prosperous Niger

In the 2018 HDI, the African country of Niger is at the very bottom of the list, having a score of 0.354. Your challenge is to make Niger a prosperous nation, with living standards comparable to those of the West.

No ASBs.
 
  • Less corruption
  • More education
  • More interconnectivity (infrastructure)
  • Good relations with it's neighbours (since Niger is landlocked, having access to the world ocean thru another country is a must)
 
I'm gonna say the challenge as stated is outright impossible to fulfill.

The reason is because the concept of Niger, even as a French colonial administrative unit, did not exist in any form whatsoever until 1922, before which Niger was lumped together with what is now Mali and Burkina Faso. So any major pre-1900 POD would mean that no country identifiable as OTL Niger is ever founded.

And even the wildest post-1900 POD is clearly insufficient to make Niger, a resource-less landlocked country in the poorest and most exploited region of the world economy, to have "living standards comparable to those of the West," a feat achieved IOTL only by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and three Chinese city-states.
 

Vuu

Banned
If I remember good, it's got a lot of Uranium

Low population and limited useful land is a problem, though
 
Perhaps a fair POD is some scenario with the Kanem Empire. I’m not sure as to how irrigation can be improved or how the Kanem can maintain its authority with its position. Frankly, the idea that I have imagine recently, was a sort of Taureg-Kanem empire formed as an analog to the Kushan Empire. Namely, a semi-nomadic and semi-sedentary empire focused upon the trading routes and dominating nearby migrant peoples while simultaneously gathering large amounts of gold tributes from nearby states, such as Mali, preferably Muslim states in the north and states to the east such as Makuria and the Abyssinian lands.

This position is in my view a possible way. Does anyone have any opinions on this? Of course this does not mean they reach western standards, but may give the region around modern Chad a different course and possibly not colonized.
 
If I remember good, it's got a lot of Uranium

Low population and limited useful land is a problem, though
For countries that depend on resources, as opposed to manufacturing and services, does not low population equal more profit per person? In the general sense that is.
 
might be impossible, Desertification and loss of Fertility is important trend that affect NA and ME, and outside capability of any society to control.
 

Isaac Beach

Banned
It’s not impossible, any country can become wealthy with the right POD. You can probably have an earlier POD than 1922 and still have the French create the Niger subdivision, which gives some flexibility. It’s incredibly improbable, but you would essentially need the world to inadvertently play to Niger’s strengths and simultaneously give Niger a reasonable leadership. I’m not at my computer so I can’t go in depth but I think a good start would be a slower decolonisation that includes the establishment of a native bureaucracy and a sizeable middle class, perhaps aided by a rail connection in Niamey. I’ll type more when I get my computer.
 
For countries that depend on resources, as opposed to manufacturing and services, does not low population equal more profit per person? In the general sense that is.

Yes, indeed, look at Botswana and Gabon, both of which have higher HDI than most other Subsaharan African countries.
 
If I remember good, it's got a lot of Uranium

Low population and limited useful land is a problem, though

Niger can export cattle/goat products (including finished goods, i.e. leather, footwear, clothing), agricultural goods, and especially uranium. Uranium depends on a nuclear power wank, but Niger's uranium could fuel much of Africa. A lot does depend on good infrastructure in the country, however.

might be impossible, Desertification and loss of Fertility is important trend that affect NA and ME, and outside capability of any society to control.

Except when societies in the area can confront desertification. Local trees managed well can work. Foreign "invasive" species--when managed well and with a local population educated on their potential--work even better. American mesquites and Australian acacias can do well in local economies. They give nutritious food in their seed pods (although their thorns need to managed) which can be mixed with traditional flours and are quick-growing, drought-tolerant trees which can be easily made into charcoal. Even without these invasive trees, the spread of the desert can be managed--African countries have done it before. In Niger's case, they don't need much foreign investment for such a project.
 
If I remember good, it's got a lot of Uranium

Low population and limited useful land is a problem, though

That first "problem" is disappearing as Niger has the world's highest fertility rate. At its current rate, it will have 50 million people by 2050.
 
For countries that depend on resources, as opposed to manufacturing and services, does not low population equal more profit per person? In the general sense that is.

Only if the profit is distributed equitably. In resource-extraction economies, the power over the resources (armies to keep them safe, capital to extract them, power to give exploration contracts to foreign companies) tends to fall into the hands of small circles of owners who then use their wealth to run patronage networks and capture the state. A particularly egregious OTL example would be Equatorial Guinea, which on paper has a big GDP per capita due to big oil income and small population. However, the authoritarian family-state running the country not only controls the production of income (the president's nephew runs the state oil company, his son is the vice president, and so on) but the income itself. Consequently, Equatorial Guinea has spent its income on building vanity cities in the jungle or spend/save it overseas while large parts of the population remains deprived of basic services. Meanwhile, the small population (and consequent small workforce) constrains economic diversification through manufacturing/agriculture.

While @Ricardolindo did bring up some positive counterexamples, even Gabon has been run as a family-state, which recently beat back a coup attempt that could (nothing's confirmed yet) signal underlying unrest.

I therefore don't think Niger can become a high-HDI (life expectancy, education, GNI per capita) country off uranium alone. Herding offers more promise-- the assets required for herding (cattle, goats) don't require massive companies or state structures to maintain. They can be owned by families and sold to other families. As the Sahelian belt becomes more economically interconnected, pastoralism offers a way for common people to advance themselves, and build up the resources needed to enter other modes of living. In South Sudan, the cattle trade with Uganda remains strong, and some refugees have used the proceeds to complete their education in Ugandan colleges. (Unfortunately, some seem to have been caught up in "degree farms".)

However, even pastoralism ultimately runs into a wall of sorts. Nigeria is currently affected by a spate of conflicts between herders and farmers over scarce lands in the center of the country. As the population grows, herders may find themselves in similar land wars with farmers or with each other. Those who stand and fight may link up with regional crime syndicates or terrorist groups for an advantage. Those who leave for greener pastures may do so for the same reasons-- Ali Darassa, leader of a rebel group in the Central African Republic, is a Fulani from Niger. His UPC rebel group contains large contingents of Fulani, who are either first-generation migrants to the CAR or the descendants of historical migrants.

Ultimately, I think to fulfill the AHC, pastoralism would need to grow but also phase itself out after some time. After initial expansion that enables the population to advance above subsistence level, it would have to consolidate through a phase of enclosure and ranching. At this point, some might leave the lifestyle-- selling their land plots to developers and investing in urban transport/trade. The developmental model here may be less China and more Missouri/Nebraska: solid economic base in livestock, with secondary functions in regional transport and shipments (along the Niger river, or through rail hubs in Niamey, Matadi, and beyond). These secondary functions may then be extended into a services industry of some kind (Niger's northern mountains were an adventurous-tourist spot until the 1990s Tuareg rebellion, I think). Other models for this kind of development may be Alberta in Canada. I would cite Argentina's beef empire, but the Rio de la Plata gives the Argies an edge that landlocked Niger can't exactly match.

Frankly, the idea that I have imagine recently, was a sort of Taureg-Kanem empire formed as an analog to the Kushan Empire. Namely, a semi-nomadic and semi-sedentary empire focused upon the trading routes and dominating nearby migrant peoples while simultaneously gathering large amounts of gold tributes from nearby states, such as Mali, preferably Muslim states in the north and states to the east such as Makuria and the Abyssinian lands.

Though it doesn't fit OP's request, it's an interesting possibility. As it stands, Niger is divided into 3 rough zones: a Zarma/Songhai west around Niamey, a Hausa/Fulani southeast around Matadi and Zinder, and a Tuareg north around Agadez. Tying these all together under a precolonial state framework is technically feasible-- the Sultanate of Damagaram in Zinder had a Kanuri ruling class, a Hausa populace, and was quite comparatively rich from trans-Sahel trade income. Nana Asma'u of the Sokoto Caliphate was fluent in Tuareg, in her station as scholar and diplomat. However, it seems these Kanuri states (and especially Kanem-Bornu itself) had troubles with dynastic legitimacy and military weakness. The last iteration of a Bornu state-- Rabih az-Zubayr's domain-- was a parasitic warlord realm which lived on the income from captured war slaves sold to Egypt.

Maybe Tuareg intervention could introduce a loyal army around which a more lasting state structure could be built? Instead of being identified with remote mountain complexes in the desert, Tuareg kels (clan confederations) could be based in villages and cities (like the Qizilbash Turkic confederacies of Iran) and become involved in the politics of surrounding kingdoms (like the Afshar and Qajar subsets of the Qizilbash, which later became imperial dynasties). Either way, they'd have to deal with the many of the same problems OTL's Fulani states did, with impending French/British competition over the Sahel being the most challenging.
 
Last edited:
Only if the profit is distributed equitably. In resource-extraction economies, the power over the resources (armies to keep them safe, capital to extract them, power to give exploration contracts to foreign companies) tends to fall into the hands of small circles of owners who then use their wealth to run patronage networks and capture the state. A particularly egregious OTL example would be Equatorial Guinea, which on paper has a big GDP per capita due to big oil income and small population. However, the authoritarian family-state running the country not only controls the production of income (the president's nephew runs the state oil company, his son is the vice president, and so on) but the income itself. Consequently, Equatorial Guinea has spent its income on building vanity cities in the jungle or spend/save it overseas while large parts of the population remains deprived of basic services. Meanwhile, the small population (and consequent small workforce) constrains economic diversification through manufacturing/agriculture.

While @Ricardolindo did bring up some positive counterexamples, even Gabon has been run as a family-state, which recently beat back a coup attempt that could (nothing's confirmed yet) signal underlying unrest.

Gabon is definitely not perfect and could be better but it's far better to live in Gabon than in neighbouring Cameroons.
 
Gabon is definitely not perfect and could be better but it's far better to live in Gabon than in neighbouring Cameroons.

Oh, that's definitely true. Still, I think that while having a lower population means that a greater proportion of the population is able to feel the primary or secondary benefits of oil wealth, the primary contributor to prosperity here is state policy. Libreville has avoided any revolutionary experiments in favor of laying low, investing in the country itself, and avoiding civil conflict. If the ruling model was closer to the neighboring Congo-Brazzaville, which recently ended a yearlong insurgency in its Pool Region that the government itself aggravated in late 2016 by reckless provocations, inequality and instability would be stronger. As it is, Gabon's prospects for long term prosperity-- as with Angola, Algeria, and other oil economies big and small-- depends on overcoming the resource curse by diversifying economically. Until then, they can count on periodic upswings when oil prices are high and crushing lows when the price drops again.

In any case, Niger has no oil (I think). Its big energy resource (excepting the sun, of which there is plenty) is uranium. But imagine having a uranium-dependent economy-- every time there's a Fukushima the international political will to expand nuclear power takes a big hit, and your profits with it. Might be even worse than oil dependence.
 
Last edited:
Comparative to the west? Impossible.

Better than most of Africa? Doable.

Yes, I think that is a more realistic goal.

For countries that depend on resources, as opposed to manufacturing and services, does not low population equal more profit per person? In the general sense that is.
Like Gabon and Botswana. Upper Middle Income countries in Africa, relatively low populations in comparison to most African States(e.g. Rwanda and Liberia that have higher populations than them, but are smaller in size) and rely heavily on minerals(Diamonds for Botswana and Petroleum for Gabon). Niger could have emulated these states by having a capable leader e.g. Sreste Khama who would have prevented military rule and improve healthcare, education and agricultural and extractive sector quality, but doesn't that make this scenario post-1900?

Perhaps a fair POD is some scenario with the Kanem Empire. I’m not sure as to how irrigation can be improved or how the Kanem can maintain its authority with its position. Frankly, the idea that I have imagine recently, was a sort of Taureg-Kanem empire formed as an analog to the Kushan Empire. Namely, a semi-nomadic and semi-sedentary empire focused upon the trading routes and dominating nearby migrant peoples while simultaneously gathering large amounts of gold tributes from nearby states, such as Mali, preferably Muslim states in the north and states to the east such as Makuria and the Abyssinian lands.

This position is in my view a possible way. Does anyone have any opinions on this? Of course this does not mean they reach western standards, but may give the region around modern Chad a different course and possibly not colonized.

Making them avoid colonisation would be difficult though. Maybe they get colonised but retain a seperate identity and secede and create their own state which becomes more prosperous than the rest of Niger.

It’s not impossible, any country can become wealthy with the right POD. You can probably have an earlier POD than 1922 and still have the French create the Niger subdivision, which gives some flexibility. It’s incredibly improbable, but you would essentially need the world to inadvertently play to Niger’s strengths and simultaneously give Niger a reasonable leadership. I’m not at my computer so I can’t go in depth but I think a good start would be a slower decolonisation that includes the establishment of a native bureaucracy and a sizeable middle class, perhaps aided by a rail connection in Niamey. I’ll type more when I get my computer.

That would require the French to adopt a non-paternalist/assimilist stand in their colonies, which needs an earlier POD.

Niger can export cattle/goat products (including finished goods, i.e. leather, footwear, clothing), agricultural goods, and especially uranium. Uranium depends on a nuclear power wank, but Niger's uranium could fuel much of Africa. A lot does depend on good infrastructure in the country, however.

Yeah. Like I previously said, a capable leadership in post independence plays a big role in the economic development of a country. A Jomo Kenyatta or Robert Mugabe who is able to prevent military takeover along with sound economic policies could have propelled Niger into an African Powehouse(after all, the only African countries that got that right were Kenya and South Africa).
 
Top