Economic Base

Inherited Export Structures and Global Demand Shifts

It was shortly after our bi-weekly United Nations JPO [Junior Professional Officer] meeting in New York. A few of us went out for an early dinner and drinks at a restaurant on 34th Street in Manhattan.

As it often does in that setting, the conversation turned to where we were from.

It began simply enough. Countries were named. Cities were mentioned. Stories followed.

Then the question shifted, almost casually:

What does your country produce?

It is not a difficult question to respond to. At least, it should not be.

That question to me carried more weight than all others. It reframed countries not as geographies or political units, but as production systems. Germany signaled manufacturing and engineering; Saudi Arabia, hydrocarbons; India, a diversified mix of services, pharmaceuticals, and increasingly manufacturing; China, industrial scale across multiple sectors.

These responses were clear positions. They located each country within the global economy: what it contributes, how it earns, where it sits in systems of production and exchange.

For Malawi, the answer is more concentrated. If I am being honest I was too ashamed to respond. The question has become one of my permanent dreads, now living in the diaspora, as a ‘proud‘ Malawian.

Tobacco remains Malawi’s dominant export earner. Tea, sugar, and a handful of other commodities contribute smaller shares. In some years, tobacco accounts for over 60 percent of foreign exchange earnings. That concentration shapes exposure to global demand, constrains foreign exchange availability, and narrows the space within which macroeconomic policy can operate.

That moment—sitting at a dinner table in New York—shifted the frame for me, and particularly as an Economist.

Development stopped being an abstract discussion about infrastructure gaps or policy reform. It became something more precise. It became a question of production. It has since been to me.

What does an economy produce at scale?
And how does that production connect to the world beyond it?

Lessons Conversation

Delve into Business and International Development with Nthanda Manduwi

podcast.lessonsconversation.com

After a month of living in the city, I attended a Detroit Economic Growth Corporation event where the City of Detroit was awards 13 businesses with grants amounting to $300,000.

The room was filled with founders, policymakers, and ecosystem builders gathered around a shared objective: increasing the probability that companies are built and sustained here.

I really like how the City of Detroit is approaching their entrepreneurship programming. It is quite deliberate: municipal grants, residency stipends, coworking access, and roles like Director of Entrepreneurship are all designed to reduce friction and create density.

As someone who is both an entrepreneur and a policy analyst, I find myself more than curious. From the inside, the strategy feels coherent. Capital is being deployed, networks are forming, and leadership is aligned around making Detroit competitive for builders.

But the city reveals itself differently once you leave that room. Moving through Detroit with the Director of Youth Affairs, Jerjuan Howard, the layers begin to separate.

Institutional support, ecosystem energy, and neighborhood reality do not fully overlap—they operate in parallel. Jerjuan’s work—through debate programs, public space, and the Howard Family Bookstore—exists at the level where rebuilding becomes physical and immediate.

His question at the end of the day to me,“Do you plan to stay?” left me reflecting on what I hope to gain from and give to Detroit.

Read the full post

Thanks for reading Lessons Conversation! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support this work.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit podcast.lessonsconversation.com

Search Episodes

Episode 3: Rebuilding Detroit | Lessons Daily

March 26, 2026

Nthanda

Episode 2: Markets Don’t Care | Lessons Daily

March 26, 2026

Nthanda

Episode 1: Run the Numbers | Lessons Daily

March 25, 2026

Nthanda

Search Results placeholder

HAVE A LISTEN

Production, Trade, and Fiscal Capacity

The mechanics are straightforward but often underemphasized in public debate. An economy generates income through production—goods and services exchanged domestically and internationally. Exports earn foreign currency, which finances imports of fuel, capital goods, intermediate inputs, and essential services. From income, taxes are collected, funding public goods: roads, power systems, water infrastructure, health, and education.

Where the export base is narrow, three constraints emerge simultaneously:

Foreign exchange vulnerability: a small number of commodities determine the availability of hard currency.
Fiscal fragility: a limited and often informal domestic base constrains tax collection.
Policy compression: macroeconomic tools—exchange rate management, public investment, and countercyclical spending—are constrained by external balances.

Malawi’s recent macroeconomic profile reflects these dynamics. Growth has been volatile; inflation has remained elevated; and foreign exchange shortages have constrained firms’ ability to import inputs, reducing capacity utilization.

I have spent the past week visiting Malawi, and have experienced this fragility at scale: terrible roads, inconsistent power supply, fuel shortages, and just far too much more.

International financial institutions have repeatedly highlighted a narrow tax base and the difficulty of capturing revenue from a largely informal economy, linking fiscal limits to underlying production structure rather than administrative effort alone.

Colonial Design

To understand why export bases are narrow in many African economies, one must quite critically examine colonial production design.

Across British and French territories, colonial administrations and settler economies organized production around a small number of export commodities aligned with European demand and agro-ecological suitability.

In Nyasaland [present-day Malawi], colonial authorities and estates expanded tobacco, tea, cotton, and coffee production from the late nineteenth century. Tobacco exports began as early as 1893, and by the interwar period, tobacco accounted for roughly 65–80 percent of exports. Land use was reorganized toward estate agriculture; African smallholders were incorporated under regulated conditions; and infrastructure—most notably the Shire Highlands Railway [1908]—was designed to move export crops efficiently to ports.

This pattern was not unique to Malawi:

Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire were structured around cocoa, today accounting for a large share of export earnings [Ghana ~20–30%; Côte d’Ivoire ~40% of global supply].
Kenya developed tea and coffee in highland zones, with tea remaining a top foreign exchange earner.
Zambia’s colonial economy centered on copper mining, which still contributes ~70%+ of export revenues.
Senegal’s groundnut basin reflects French colonial emphasis on peanut production.
Nigeria, initially diversified in agricultural exports [palm oil, cocoa], transitioned post-independence into oil dependence, with ~80–90% of export revenue tied to hydrocarbons.

Across cases, three features recur:

External orientation: production designed for export rather than domestic industrial linkages.
Incomplete value chains: raw or lightly processed goods exported; higher-value processing captured elsewhere.
Concentration: reliance on one or two commodities, increasing exposure to price and demand shocks.

This structure is best understood as designed specialization within a global system.

Path Dependency After Independence

Political independence did not automatically reconfigure production systems. In many countries, the inherited export model persisted due to a combination of incentives and constraints:

Foreign exchange needs: established export crops generated hard currency quickly.
Institutional continuity: marketing boards, estate systems, and trade relationships remained in place.
Infrastructure alignment: transport and storage systems were optimized for existing commodities.
Capability constraints: limited industrial base, capital scarcity, and skills gaps made rapid diversification difficult.

In Malawi, the ADMARC system and estate expansion reinforced tobacco’s centrality. Similar dynamics operated elsewhere: cocoa boards in West Africa, mining enclaves in Southern Africa, and oil sectors in Nigeria. The result is path dependency—where historical choices shape current options, and shifting trajectories requires coordinated change across multiple domains.

Path dependency does not imply inevitability. It indicates the scale of coordination required to pivot.

Global Demand Shifts: The UK Moves On

The vulnerability of concentrated export structures becomes most visible when global demand shifts. The recent UK Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which establishes a “smoke-free generation” by permanently restricting tobacco sales to those born after 2008, is a case in point. While implementation phases in over time, the policy signals a long-run decline in tobacco consumption in a major market.

For producer economies heavily reliant on tobacco, the implication is structural:

Demand erosion over time reduces export earnings.
Price volatility increases as markets adjust.
Foreign exchange constraints tighten, affecting imports and production.

This asymmetry is not unique to tobacco. Cocoa producers face price swings and changing consumption patterns; copper exporters are exposed to global cycles; oil producers to energy transitions. The common feature is that consuming countries can pivot policy and behavior, while producing countries absorb the adjustment unless they diversify.

The intuition often expressed informally—“they move on and leave us”—captures a real economic mechanism: global value chains reconfigure; specialized producers bear transition costs.

We Need A LOT of Accountability

A credible analysis requires two acknowledgments held simultaneously.

First, colonial systems structured production in ways that favored export agriculture or resource extraction, often at the expense of diversified industrialization.

Second, post-independence choices have reinforced these structures. Governments prioritized established export sectors for foreign exchange; industrial policies were uneven or inconsistent; private sectors remained constrained in scale; and in some cases, macroeconomic instability undermined long-term investment.

This is a systems argument about responsibility and agency. History explains the starting point. It does not remove the need to define and execute a different trajectory.

We Can Transform Within Decades

The claim that structural transformation requires centuries is not supported by comparative evidence.

China’s post-1978 reforms began from a low-income base—GDP per capita around $155 in current USD, comparable to or below many developing countries at the time. Over subsequent decades, a combination of infrastructure investment, export-oriented manufacturing, special economic zones, and gradual liberalization transformed the economy into a global manufacturing hub.

The lesson is not that China’s model is universally replicable. It is that decades of coordinated policy, investment, and capability-building can materially shift an economy’s position. Time horizons matter, but so does direction and execution.

Defining the Direction

Malawi’s long-term development framework, MW2063, articulates three pillars:

Agricultural Productivity and Commercialisation
Industrialisation
Urbanisation

These are appropriate high-level objectives. The analytical challenge is translating them into production outcomes:

What specific value chains will be built or upgraded?
Which intermediate inputs will be produced domestically?
How will logistics, energy, and standards support continuous production?
What firm-level capabilities are required, and how will they be financed?

Policy statements are necessary. Production at scale is decisive.

Building Value Chains

Diversification is often framed abstractly. In practice, it is about extending value chains:

In cocoa economies, moving from bean exports to grinding, butter, powder, and chocolate manufacturing.
In tea, expanding into blending, packaging, branding, and distribution.
In mining, developing smelting, refining, and downstream fabrication where feasible.
In agriculture, building cold chains, storage, and processing to reduce losses and increase value.

These transitions require standards, energy reliability, logistics, finance, and market access. They also require firm capabilities—management, engineering, quality control—often developed over time with targeted support.

Energy and Logistics: Non-Negotiable Foundations

Industrialization is constrained by energy reliability and logistics coordination. Continuous production—whether in food processing, textiles, or light manufacturing—cannot operate on intermittent power or unpredictable input delivery.

Empirically, firms in environments with foreign exchange shortages and energy constraints report reduced capacity utilization, as inputs cannot be imported on time and outages interrupt production cycles. This links macro constraints (forex, fiscal space) directly to micro-level production outcomes.

Investment priorities therefore have to be sequenced:

Stable power (generation, transmission, and backup capacity)
Transport corridors (roads, rail, ports) aligned with target value chains
Trade facilitation (customs, standards, border efficiency)

Without these, industrial policy remains aspirational.

Workforce and Firms: Capability as Constraint

Production shifts when workers and firms can execute new tasks reliably.

This includes:

Technical skills (machining, electrical, process control)
Managerial capabilities (operations, inventory, quality)
Organizational discipline (timing, coordination, maintenance)

Education systems, vocational training, and firm-level learning-by-doing all matter. Evidence from industrializers shows that capability accumulation is iterative: early firms learn, suppliers emerge, standards improve, and ecosystems deepen.

Policy can accelerate this through:

apprenticeships and technical institutes aligned to target sectors
supplier development programs
credit and guarantees for small and medium manufacturers
public procurement that creates initial demand

External Partners

International financial institutions and development partners provide financing and technical support. Historically, conditionality has shaped policy choices, sometimes emphasizing stabilization over structural transformation.

A more effective approach is alignment:

External resources support internally defined strategies.
Financing is tied to clear production goals and measurable outputs.
Technical assistance focuses on capability-building in firms and institutions.

This requires clarity from the recipient side: what sectors to prioritize, what constraints to remove, and how success will be measured.

Transition Risks

Diversification entails transition costs:

Short-term fiscal pressure as legacy sectors face headwinds
Balance-of-payments strain during import of capital goods
Political economy challenges as rents shift

Risk management tools include:

phased diversification rather than abrupt shifts
stabilization funds where commodity revenues allow
exchange rate flexibility to support competitiveness
targeted social protection during adjustment

The objective is not to abandon existing exports immediately, but to reduce dependence over time.

Practical Sequence

I proposed here a feasible sequence for a small, open economy might include:

Stabilize energy and logistics for priority corridors.
Identify 2–3 value chains with realistic comparative advantage.
Support lead firms and supplier networks with finance and standards.
Align skills development to firm needs (technical and managerial).
Leverage regional markets for scale before global expansion.
Gradually extend processing and branding to capture more value.

Each step is measurable and can be monitored.

My Dreaded Question

The question—what does your country produce?—is a prompt for strategy.

In its current form, the answer for Malawi remains concentrated. That concentration reflects history, but also present choices and constraints. The global environment is shifting—through policy changes like tobacco control, through market dynamics, and through technological change.

The relevant question now is not only descriptive. It is decisional:

What will the country produce next, at scale, and with what supporting system?

Many African economies were structured around narrow export systems aligned to colonial demand. Decades later, those structures still shape outcomes—foreign exchange availability, fiscal capacity, and vulnerability to global shifts.

Recognizing this is necessary. It is not sufficient.

Redefining production—through value chain development, energy and logistics investment, workforce capability, and aligned policy—is the work that changes trajectories. It is complex, resource-intensive, and iterative. It is also the mechanism through which economies expand their room to maneuver.