Globalisation and Consolidation of Dependency and Underdevelopment in Africa

Globalisation is a process which transformed the world into a single political economy. Africa is one of the continents that is sharply affected by globalisation. This paper examined the impacts of globalisation in consolidating Africa's economic and political dependency and underdevelopment. The problem is globalisation comes up with many opportunities, especially for developing countries, but, Africa failed to utilize the opportunities. The paper is a conceptual paper which used secondary sources of data for analysis and interpretations. The work discovered that Africa found itself more caged in a circle of dependency and underdevelopment despite all the trade negotiations, open opportunities, and technological transfer. Thus, the paper suggested that Africa cannot exist in isolation especially in this wave of globalisation, but there is a need for an internal restructuring to accommodate diversities and complexities of external forces and balance them with internal advantages for local industrialisation, genuine regional integration, and intensive trade development.


Introduction
Globalisation is a process and a force that is transforming the world into a single universal political and economic system across the globe in the most rapid speed ever witness in the history of mankind. Globalisation is the main force that is dominating the world today, especially the economic globe threatening to reduce the relevance of nation-states and national borders. It is perceived as a means that brings posterity to many parts of the world and misery to other regions (Asongu, 2012). Africa remains perpetuated in a crisis of politics and underdevelopment even in the global era where its counterparts in Asia and Latin America have progressed positively (Konings & domestic earnings. The policy was made very difficult to follow because of three major factors. Smaller internal markets of the poor countries cannot be as competitive as that of the richer ones. The second factor is lack of political will from the ruling class in the poor countries, and the last factor was the extent to which the poor countries had control of their raw materials at home (Ferraro, 1996). The theory came to be perceived as a clearer explanation of the perceived poverty, dependency, and backwardness of the poor countries of the world. Other scholars from the Latin America (Paul Baran, Andre Gunder Frank, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Dos Santos, and Emmanuel Wallerstein) joined in the debate in the mid and late 1950s and African scholars (Samir Amin, Walter Rodney, Bade Onimode and Claude Ake) also subscribed to the theory and built on it in the 1960s. This was the genesis of the theory within the limelight of global intellectual discourse.

Basic Assumptions of the Theory
The theory has no unified assumptions because the proponents of the theory have a different perception of the situation and the solutions. For instance, Baran (1957) stresses that monopoly capitalism was the cause of backwardness in both developed and underdeveloped countries since monopoly capitalism made its expansion impossible in the developed countries and repatriation of surplus profits from investment by the developed countries in the poor countries made the poor countries unable to get enough for investment. He concluded that capitalism started the engine of growth, but now, socialism should do the job better. Frank (1979) believed that capitalism causes underdevelopment and dependency of the Third World Countries. He noted that: It is capitalism, both world and national, which produced Underdevelopment in the past and which still generates Underdevelopment in the Present" (Frank, 1979:2). Frank (1978) identified that there is a centre-satellite relationship between the capitalist countries and the underdeveloped world. He suggested that the economic dependence of the satellite economy is the answer or total delink from an economic relationship with the centre by the periphery. Wallerstein (1974) argued that the world system involves capitalism and the world economy, which are two sides of the same coin (Brewer, 2001). Wallerstein (mentioned that the capitalist world system is divided into three tiers of state: the core, the semiperiphery, and the periphery. The core is the capitalist countries, and the periphery is the poor economically and technologically backward countries with the semi-periphery being some middle-level countries that stabilise the system to avoid revolt from the periphery against the core (Wallerstein, 1974). Amin (1974), on the other hand, perceives that unequal specialisation at world scale led to the unequal accumulation of wealth at a global scale. The advanced technological countries or the capitalist states specialised in technology, which gave them edge in terms of investment, capital accumulation, and profit. The poor countries lack technology leaving them as primary exporters of raw materials only, which situates them in a disadvantageous position of trade and economic relationship. Amin (1974) concludes that the only way out of this problem for developing countries is to industrialised in terms of import substitution and delink from the capitalist chain of exploitation.
It is argued that development and underdevelopment are two sides of the same coin and that it is the long-standing relationship between Africa and Europe that led to underdevelopment of the former by the latter (Rodney, 1972). Furthermore, imperialism has been the major cause of dependency of Africa through capitalist domination of an asymmetrical trade which culminated in the present predicaments of Africa in the present era of globalisation (Onimode, 1983) and the emergence of imperialism, capitalism and foreign investment in strategic sectors of the African economy created underdevelopment and dependency in the African political economy (Ake, 1981). The theory has four basic assumptions going by the above different submissions of the leading proponents of the theory as follows: 1. Underdevelopment emanated out of failure to utilize the resources of the poor countries for their benefit; 2. The poor countries are dependent on the capitalist world because they were coercively forced into the relationship and that made them unable to compete; 3. The alternative means advanced by the theorist is the full used of domestic resources by the poor countries for domestic economic development and 4. The diversion and exploitation of resources from the poor countries occurred dominantly and constantly because of the collaboration with the local elite.

Criticisms of the Theory
The Underdevelopment Dependency Theory met with criticisms from within and outside the Latin American and African context for some reasons. Firstly, the theory was criticised for its low level of policy implications. The solutions preferred by the theory seemed impracticable, and it failed. Many poor countries attempted, but the forces of globalisation overwhelmingly compelled them to change. Secondly, the theorists are over-ambitious in their pragmatism concerning how the Third World Countries can approach development issues and economic problems. Furthermore, the theory totally neglected the beneficial aspect of the relationship between the poor countries and the capitalist ones in the relationship (Brewer, 2001:179).

Applicability within the Context of the Work
The theory is concise and precise explanations and interpretations of the subject matter of study. It is assumed by the theory that Africa was underdeveloped and made dependent on capitalist countries because of the unequal economic and political relationship that took place from the era of imperialism to globalisation. The imperialism and globalisation themselves are part of the globalisation process that started hundreds or even thousands of years ago, as examined in the next section. Thus, it is applicable here in this study since it is attempting to identify and analyse why the present globalisation process still maintains and consolidates the relationship in its status quo of keeping Africa poor, underdeveloped, dependent and backward in all ramifications. Indeed, the study is a continuation of the analysis of the theorist here since they recognised the problems from the perspective of global relationship which later became more pronounced, more consolidated and more formidable in the present era.

Literature Review
In this section, some vital issues and perspectives that are relevant to globalisation are critically and succinctly discussed and analysed including the conceptual interpretations of the term globalisation, the genesis, agents of globalisation and globalisation and African states.

Conceptualisation of Globalisation
The term globalisation is a contested term which has no single meaning or conception. It is simply many things to many people, and it is perceived differently depending on the sentiments that one is viewing it. However, it has a close call or meaning that one cannot deviate from irrespective of his background. Globalisation is the internationalisation of trade and greater interconnections leading to expansion and explosion of the world economy (Hoogvelt, 2001:69). Globalisation is an integration of the world economies and its interconnections in economic interdependency (Thernborn, 2006). In other views, globalisation is identified as the emergence of the new global economic order in which transnationalism has become more pronounced with the establishment of a uniform global financial system through international financial institutions, free movement of multinational corporations across the globe and the promotion of the politics of regional integration (Gilpin, 2001). In another opinion, globalisation is a policy, an ideology, a process, and a strategy (Heywood, 2011:34). It is the emergence of a multicomplex web of interdependencies and interconnectivity politically and economically at a global scale never witnessed in the history of the world (Heywood, 2011:35).
Globalisation is a force that has brought so much good for the fortunate countries and lots of controversies for the unfortunate countries. It is a process of opening up to international trade for economic cooperation and global development (Stiglitz, 2002:4). Globalisation is a concept that is used to refer to infer economic and political transformations across the society in the contemporary world owing to the unavoidable outcome of the domineering ambitions of a global market economy and transnational corporations (Amoore, 2002:4). Globalisation is the most important change in human history, which is known as transnationalism or a process that interconnect individuals, groups, economies, and politics across all geopolitical borders (Ritzer, 2011:2). Another controversial dimension of the term globalisation is the one presented by Open Society Justice Initiative (2013) which identified globalisation as the era of intensified CIA torture because of the post-September 11 in which perceived terrorists are tortured and detained across the globe by America and her allies extra-judicially. This is the security aspect of globalisation.
Globalisation is a very broad concept with respect to the complexity of the regions, cultures, actors and the processes itself which have its root in the past, has its manifestations and visibility today and implications in the future) (Sheffield, Korotayev & Grinin 2013. Globalisation is perceived as an undemocratic system where there are unfair trade arrangements, exploitation through patents right and profits repatriation and a massive movement and expansion of multinational corporations between the capitalist countries and developing countries (Stiglitz, 2006). Stiglitz (2006) further observed that the planet is under a potential risk of extinction in this unjust system is to democratise globalisation where fairness in trade negotiations and other political arrangements can be promoted. In a contrary view to the above to the Stiglitz (2006), Friedman (2002) perceived globalisation as an undeniable and a formidable process beyond the powers of nation-states which threatens to erase cultural barriers, obliterate trade borders, merge economies of the world under one system and transnationalised politics across the globe in an irreversible manner.
Globalisation is different from globalism. The former denotes multicomplex linkages and interconnections which transcends national borders in the current world system and a process in which events and political and economic decisions came to have effects globally on individuals, groups, corporations, and nation-states (Reich, 1998). The latter means globalism means a uniform and collective means of sharing values, ethics, and politics as global citizens (Keohane & Nye, 2000). It can be deduced that globalisation is a process and action, while globalism is more like an ideology.
By summing up all the above scholastic views, it can be concluded that globalisation is a process in which the world economy, politics, culture, societies, and individuals in a complex web of interconnectivity across the planet in the most rapid speed. It can also be viewed as an old fashion process and a current process which has future global implications. It is also an agreement that has trade negotiations and international political process that is uniformalised and universalised. It is also a term that is contestable and is yet to be understood fully since we are still undergoing the process in the present age. It can also be concluded that it is an era and a process that submerged the African continent within an ambience of dependency and underdevelopment. There are arguments on the issue of whether globalisation has positive or negative effects, especially on developing economies. The Washington consensus (World Bank and IMF) agreed that globalisation is the engine for the economic growth of both the developed and developing countries. But, the radical scholars especially the IPEs (Amin, Frank, Baran) disagreed and perceived the globalisation process as a means of underdeveloping the developing economies and making them further dependent on the centre (Kandil, Shahbaz, Mahalik & Nguyen, 2017).

Genesis of Globalisation
There are waves that heralded some activities which tantamount to the present stage of globalisation in the world. These waves are five as discussed and presented below, as identified by Thernborn (2006). 1. The late 1700s to the early 1900s: this is one of the early waves of globalisation. The roots of globalisation especially economic globalisation can be traced back to the Roman Empire in the 15 th century and its many wars of conquest, the Han Dynasty in China and the Islamic Golden Age with Muslim traders and explorers. But the first wave of globalisation is more visible in a modern time during the 1700s up to the period of the First World War. During this wave, many nation-states' economies are linked to the global economy as suppliers of manufactured goods, raw materials, services, capital, and investments. It was the era of colonisation by European powers (Britain, France, Spain, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and others) of areas including Australia, Asia, India, South America, North America, the Pacific and Africa focusing on exporting their commodities or raw materials. The 1800s, therefore, witnessed the drastic explosion of international trade and globalisation of capital on a larger scale as compared to the previous period. The improvements in transport, technology, capital, and industrialisation made this explosion possible.
2. 1915 to 1947 Slowdown of Globalisation: is the period that witnessed two World Wars in 1914 to 1945, which slowed down the process and the push for internationalisation and globalisation. The globe witnessed economic depression and political tensions. Taxes were increased, and many strong economies suffered setback, which declined the international transfer of capital, investment, and trade. It is also the era of regional integration in which regionalism started as in the case of the European Union (EU). The period also witnessed Cold War ideological battle between the United States of America (USA) and her allies and the United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) and her allies or the ideological warfare between capitalism and communism or Western Europe and Eastern Europe.
4. 1970 to 2014: this is the most recent wave of globalisation. It began in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s where tariffs were dismantled, economic reforms and adjustments were introduced, the world economy deregulated, multinational corporations are moving freely across the globe without many difficulties, regional economic and political cooperation emanated such as Northern American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), Latin American Free Trade Association (LAFTA), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), South African Development Commission (SADC), Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) and many others. It is also an era of global promotion of liberal democracy and democratisation. An era that witnessed the collapse of national boundaries and free movement of goods and services in the planet.

2014 and Future Speculation
: this is the era of cynicism where despite the formidable consolidation of globalisation in the most rapid stage ever witnessed in the history of the globe, many are cynical that it might be coming to an end just the way any ideology or process is passing historically. This is because of the serious global financial crises, recessions, and uncertainties that took place in 1997, 2008-2009 and 2013-2014 as well as 2015 to 2018 recession and the global oil crisis. Free market economics associated with globalisation is blamed as the cause of the crises. As a result, there are calls for governments to regulate their economies and reduce the internationalisation of their economies to a certain level. The Brexit or British exit from EU is a case in this context and the declaration of the United States under President Trump to withdraw from many global trade agreements which he declared as harmful to the American economy. Recently in Africa, Nigeria on 20 th March 2018 withdrew from signing a single trade agreement by African countries citing American reason for their justification.

Agents of Globalisation
The agents of globalisation are those agencies that are responsible for carrying out the agenda of globalisation internationally as supported by champions of turning the world into a global village. They are many as discussed below, as presented by Sule (2005).
1. United Nations Organisation (UNO): it was established after the end of the Second World War as a universal world government responsible for maintenance of international peace and security and promotion of co-operation among world nations. The UN soon appears to be a pawn in the hands of world-dominant powers for the advancement of capitalist interests and suppression of any threat to these interests. For instance, while the US, USSR, and major European countries proliferated nuclear weapons for decades, developing countries were banned from the proliferation of such weapons through sanctions, threats, subversions, and manipulations. 2. Multilateral Financial Institutions: this includes World Bank, IMF, London and Paris clubs who are lenders and financiers of development projects and aids internationally. They lobby and sometimes even impose free trade, liberalisation, withdrawal of subsidy, harsh economic reforms on Third World Countries, especially Africa. This process enables the developed countries to have easy access to market, cheap labour, and raw materials which are essential for their industries. Trade Organization (WTO), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) which purposely seek to consolidate and promote international trade and free movement of goods and services across national boundaries. 5. Capitalist Countries: globalisation is pushed and consolidated by world capitalist countries, particularly the US, Britain, and many European countries. They started the globalisation process by imperialising, colonising, and incorporating Africa countries into international capitalism, leading to what Nkrumah termed "Neocolonialism" (Nkrumah, 1965:1) a continuation of colonialism through other means. This robbed Africa of her economic independence and political freedom and consolidated dependence and backwardness.

Africa and Globalisation
Globalisation is the era that set the foundation for the integration of Africa into the world capitalist system. It began from the slave trade to imperialism and colonialism (Momoh & Soteolu, 2001). According to Underdevelopment Dependency Theory, Globalisation is a process that started with the internationalisation of capitalism which integrated the world economy into a single system of developed and underdeveloped countries. Thernborn (2006) in his waves of globalisation identified the first wave (1700s-1900s) as the period in which globalisation came into Africa with the African raw materials being exploited by the imperialists and colonialists for industrial Europe which led to asymmetrical political-economic relationship leading to the development of the industrialised countries and underdevelopment of the raw material producers.
It is imperative to note that globalisation came into Africa through three major processes; colonialism, the imperialism of trade and foreign investment. According to Ake (1981:53): "The dialectics of global capitalism through imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism had completely altered and truncated the the evolutionary destiny of Africa by creating classes, institutions, structures and processes that are subservient to global capitalism." The penetration of the capitalist world into Africa during imperialism and colonialism succeeded in weaving the African continent into the cobweb complex of interdependency and underdevelopment in which the pre-arranged economic-political system favoured the developed industrialised colonial countries as against the underdevelopment colonised raw material exporting countries. Imperialism of trade is the second process in which Africa found herself in the intricate complex of globalisation. Imperialism meant capitalist expansion. It means that European and North American and Japanese) capitalists were forced by the internal logic of their competitive system to seek abroad in less developed countries opportunities to control raw material supplies, to find markets and to find profitable fields of investment. Imperialism is essentially an economic phenomenon, and it does not necessarily lead to direct political control or colonisation (Rodney, 1976:163). Thus, the African strategic economic sectors, especially mining, agriculture, and other resources were dominated and externally control by the capitalist world leading to exploitation. Imperialism caused dependency and underdevelopment of Africa because: "The controlled development of the African economy in the interest of the metropole, which went along with the expansion of colonial trade meant structural links and structural interdependence" (Ake, 1981: 36).
The nature and orientation of foreign (capitalist) investment in the African colonial economies undoubtedly created and facilitated the integration of these economies into the mainstream of global capitalism (Ake, 1981: 37). This is because: "As western capital flowed into the economy, capitalism spread. And as Capitalism and capitalist-oriented institutions took root; the economy of the colony becomes more compatible with western economies and this aided integration. Foreign investment created linkages between the metropolitan and colonial economies. For example, while stimulating primary production in the colonial economies, it directed its forward linkages outwards to the Metropole" (Ake, 1981: 38).
Thus, Africa was effectively sub-merged in the current globalisation process through a long-standing relationship with the imperialist and capitalist countries in an unfavourable relationship of exploitation and dependency. It can be succinctly concluded here that globalisation is a process which created dependency and underdevelopment in Africa. This phenomenon has been supported by Ritzel Kohler and Mann (2017) using Tunisia as a case study where they postulated that the developing economies were integrated into the global world economy through trade and other international economic policies directed by the capitalist countries.

Discussions and Findings
As rightly observed by Ake (1981), imperialism and colonialism are the most truncating phenomenon that submerged the African continent into the webs of globalisation. The major crisis of the African continent emanated in the 1970s and 1980s from the overdependence on metropolitan capitalism, and their suffering emerged from the spillover of the crises of industrialised countries. Thus, the main problem with Africa is that of underdevelopment. The root of these crises in Africa was a prelude of elementarily relationship exploitation, domestic class structures, external dependency, and distortions of the inherent neocolonial sociopolitical formations in Africa. In the global arena, there is a paradox of continental wealth and mass poverty in Africa. All these crises are directly linked with the merging of Africa in the globalisation process by the capitalist industrialised countries (Onimode, 1983).
Africa's dependency and underdevelopment were consolidated through international debt. This international debt problem has become such a crisis that many countries pay more money to the World Bank and the IMF, each year than they received in loans. The World Bank's own figure indicates that the IMF extracted the net US $1 billion from Africa in 1997 and 1998, more than they loaned to the continent. Globally, poor countries owed lenders from private banks to the World Bank almost USD 2.5 trillion in 1998, up to the US $150 billion from the previous year. But the debt owed to the World Bank and the IMF is the most difficult to deal with because unlike private lenders and government aid agencies, the World Bank and IMF refuse to cancel debt because these two institutions say that their bye-laws prohibit them from doing this. In addition, governments have special incentive to stay current with their multilateral debts, since the IMF determines the creditworthiness of countries which usually requires adherence to economic policies it recommends, i.e., SAP in the 1980s (World Bank Report 2000).
While some progress has been made in achieving and maintaining debt sustainability in Africa over the past decade, the debt burdens which are primarily in the sub -Saharan African Region, are the result of a build-up of foreign debt in the 1970s and 1980s. During those decades, commodity prices were high. Thinking that the price fall in the 1970s and early 1980s will bring about positive effects on the economy, Africa, like other countries, was left with massive debt repayments that still exist in 2012. The current global economic downtown has the possibility of furthering the debt crisis in Africa by resulting in even lower remittances and exports (Economic Report on Africa 2012).
Africa's crippling debt load does little to advance social and economic progress. Instead of spending on things such as education and healthcare, money is diverted to debt repayments. It is estimated that almost 814 billion per year is spent on debt repayment in Africa, while many people in the continent are forced to live on less than $2 per day. Despite these staggering figures, the creditors of Africa's debt obligations continue to insist on repayment (Economic Report on Africa 2012). Another area of consolidating Africa's dependency and underdevelopment is trade exchange. Africa export only 7% of the world export as of 2008. The volume of total African export is mainly unprocessed raw materials.
In addition, foreign aid subjected Africa to dependency. Foreign aid comes in cash or kind as humanitarian crises such as disaster, war, famine, diseases, human right activities, and development aid. Aid is transferred bilateral, which is government to government transfers, multilateral institutions such as the World Bank or UNICEF. This also includes debt relief and debt cancelation at times. There is also private donor aid by individuals and philanthropist.
In 2002, total gross foreign aid to all developing countries was $76 billion. The West has spent $450 billion on foreign aid to Africa over the past four decades and still has not managed to make poverty a history resulting from harmful conditionalities specifically attaching Africa's economy under the whims and caprices of the West in return. For instance, between 1970 and 1980, when aid flows to Africa were at their peak, poverty in Africa rose from 11% to 62%.A major proportion of aid from donor nations is tied, mandating that a receiving nation spend on products and expertise originating only from the donor country, law backed by strong firm interests requires food aid be spent on buying food at home, instead of where the hungry lives, and as a result, half of what is spent is used on transport. The World Bank and the IMF, as primary holders of developing countries debt, attached Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) conditionalities to loans which generally include the elimination of subsidies and the privatisation of state services. For example, the World Bank pressed poor countries to eliminate subsidies on fertilizer, even where many farmers cannot afford them at market prices (Food Aid Reform March 2013).
In their April 2002 Publication, Oxfam reveals that aid tied to trade liberalisation by the donor countries such as the European Union with the aim of achieving economic objective is becoming detrimental to developing countries for example, the EU subsidizes its agricultural sectors at the expense of Africa who must liberalise trade and agriculture to qualify for aid (Food Aid Reform March 2013).
A report by the World Bank in 2013 concludes that: "While most economists accept that, in the long run, open economies fare better in aggregate than closed ones, many fear that open trade could harm the poor. African countries, for example, have realised significant improvements in trade liberalisation in recent decades, yet Africa remains the poorest continent in the world. It seems that the large gains expected from opening up to international economic forces have been limited in Africa, especially for the poor".
The above indicated that the so-called benefit of trade liberalisation and globalisation is not automatic across the globe and to some extent is harmful and exploitative in Africa, leading to impoverishment, dependency, and underdevelopment. Africa's trade summed up only to 3.5% of global exports and imports in 2011 as compared to 6% for developing Latin American countries and 32% for Asia. Yet, Africa remains poor with Sub-Saharan Africa the most hit having almost 50% of the population living below USD 1.25% a day. The large openness and its expected benefit in globalisation have not been realised by many countries in Africa, and thus, trade cannot reduce poverty or liberalisation of trade and border openness cannot likely make Africa better (Goff & Singh, 2013). It is observed by World Bank in 2015 that while the majority of world countries in other continents are becoming better off and economically prosperous, the African continent is becoming poorer in the era of globalisation despite all the benefits and opportunities available globally (Asongu, Efobi & Tchamyou, 2018).
In a conference organised by the African Union in 2002, they have arrived at a conclusion that globalisation is an inevitable process that Africa cannot isolate itself from but, it is very weak to compete in this new-fashioned global economic competition because of many factors including: "Asymmetry in the distribution of power results in different perceptions and evaluation of the impact of globalisation. In the case of Africa, its position in the international system has been considerably weakened by the fact that it has been losing the race for economic development in general, and human development, to other regions. This poor performance by African countries accounts in parts for the political and social instability and the rise of authoritarian regimes that have characterised much of post-colonial Africa, further weakening the ability of African countries to deal effectively with globalisation" (African Union 2002).
In addition, the AU summit in 2002 agreed and concluded in unison that globalisation is a major force or a process that led to the economic marginalisation of Africa, dependency, and underdevelopment in the following words: "Economically, globalisation, has, on the whole, reinforced the economic marginalisation of the African economies and their dependence for a few primary goods for which demand and prices are externally determined. This has, in turn, accentuated poverty and economic inequality as well as the ability of the vast number of Africans to participate meaningfully in the social and political life of their countries. Economic and social stagnation has also triggered a substantial brain-drain from Africa, further weakening the ability of African countries to manage their economies efficiently and effectively" (African Union 2002).
It is also observed in the summit that, not only the economic aspect of Africa was truncated and marginalised by globalisation but also its culture.
"As a result of cultural domination from outside that goes with globalisation, African countries are rapidly losing their cultural identity and therefore their ability to interact with other cultures on an equal and autonomous basis, borrowing from other cultures only those aspects that meet its requirements and needs. While the scientific and technological forces unleashed by globalisation have facilitated to some extent access by Africans to advanced technology and information, this has been at the expense of stultifying the indigenous development of technology and distorting patterns of production in Africa, notably by utilising capital as against labour intensive method of production, which in turns increased unemployment and poverty (African Union 2002).
Culture impoverishment via globalisation is another source of poverty and economic underdevelopment in Africa. Culture impoverishment is yet another form of poverty inflicted on societies through the influence of globalisation. In Nigeria, western culture and values have so much infiltrated our society such that some of our rich cultural heritage has given way to alien ones. Precipitating this culture impoverishment is the giant technological height attained by the modern world in the area of communication. Examples are the proliferation of televisions and Western movies as well as the internet, all of which influenced the lifestyles and the way people think. Often times, immoral behaviors and attitudes were imbibed while the normative values become meaningless, preference for foreign fabric and designers wears by Africans is on the increase as these goods continue to flood the African markets without hindrance. Many manufacturers of local fabrics have run out of business because of this, causing a lot of unemployment (Nwagbara, 2001: 201).
Globalisation can be measured based on its effects on the economic and overall development that it brought. In the African context, such fate is yet to be realised. All the policies that were prepared to integrate Africa into the mainstream of the global economy failed because they have completely ignored the developmental needs of Africa. Despite all the reforms stipulated for Africa including the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) and open trade policy, by 1990s, little or nothing had changed. Even the recent change in Africa's export indicates that no meaningful increase had occurred in the number of industries in which most African countries have a confirmed "comparative advantage." Indeed, the non-oil exports of Africa were now one-half of what they were a decade before (Nkandawire, 2005).
A comparison of Africa's economic performance in the specific period in which the last wave of globalisation and its most formidable process was said to have occurred disclosed that, the last two decades (the 1990s and 2000s) and the last period (2000 and above) show clearly that globalisation has not created a rate of growth in Africa better than those of the 1960s and 1970s. The per capita income was negative during the last two decades of globalisation. In the era of globalisation, not only Africa is affected negatively, other poor countries to are affected, but that of Africa is more pronounced most especially Sub-Saharan Africa. For instance, globally, the poor countries subsided from a per capita GDP growth rate of 1.9% annually between 1960-1980 to a decline of 0.5% per year . Indeed, the poor performance of Africa and its domination and marginalisation by globalisation is now accepted universally. The only disagreements are on the causes of the failure. The BrettonWood Institutions blamed the African countries on failure to implement the adjustments provided accordingly. But, the other section, including the African countries and scholars believed that Africa was maladjusted and integrated deliberately into the globalisation process with a string of dependency and underdevelopment perpetually (Nkandawire, 2005).
The old and new political economy of Africa can explain the scenario of Africa's dependency and underdevelopment in the present globalisation era. For instance, the amalgamation and linking of the African economy and politics into the mainstream of global capitalism is a clear explanation of the distortion, truncation, alteration, and dislodgement of Africa's independent and indigenous growth, industrialisation and independence in the global economic and political competitiveness. After the successful process of integration, African newly states became a periphery of industrialised countries as observed by Wallerstein (1974) and other Underdevelopment/Dependency scholars. The African states have also come into limelight of serving the metropolitan bourgeoisie with luxury and extravagance leaving the agenda of development as a hoax and a misplaced priority (Ake, 1996) in which the past status quo of the domination and marginalisation of Africa continued unabated with the support of the African domestic bourgeoisie and it is in this situation that the African continent entered into the most formidable wave of globalisation in the 21 st century, disjointed, dislocated, dependent and underdeveloped (Arrighi, 2002). The above view has also been presented by Hagen (2002) in his analysis.
The above analyses so far by different scholars on the effects of globalisation in consolidating dependency and underdevelopment of Africa in the present era of globalisation can be supported comfortably and academically by the discourses of the Underdevelopment/Dependency Theory (UDT). In the first instance, it should be noted that, the UDT scholars argued that Africa and the other developing countries were not naturally underdeveloped but rather incorporated within the exploitative system of globalisation through the antecedents of the historical vicissitudes of international capitalism, imperialism, colonialism and foreign investments which tantamount to the present unequal international division of political and economic relationship. The above analysts also pointed towards that directly with factual arguments and discussions showing that so-called Africa's partners in the West and America did not only underdeveloped the African continent and subjected it under dependency but also continued to prescribe maladjusted adjustments and open trade policies that further consolidated the dependency and underdevelopment which deepens the crisis of African political economy of development and underdevelopment.

Conclusion and Recommendations
The work concludes that globalisation has not benefitted Africa positively and that the continent was weakened further by the global forces making it more dependent and underdeveloped in the process because of the situation that the continent found herself. The work also concludes that Africa cannot withdraw or disconnect herself from the present global world but, rather re-strategised to identify the means in which her counterparts in other parts of the world manipulate to secure the advantage and positive benefits of globalisation. In doing so, the paper recommends the following strategies for Africa to secure a better and positive outcome from the globalisation phenomenon: 1. Africa must look inward for indigenous policies and programmes of development designed purposely for Africa by Africans and avoid total acceptance of adjusted programmes by the West; 2. Africa needs to develop gradually her indigenous industries using local industries to minimised importation of finished products from the developed economies which will retain a large sum of money and investment within Africa; 3. Africa should engage her fellow counterparts in Asia, Eastern Europe and South America such as Russia, China, Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, Indonesia and other upcoming developing world for technology exchange in order to develop local industries; 4. Africa should pressurise the world particularly the international financial institutions, political institutions, and economic or trade organisations constantly for a better re-negotiation against the existing status quo; 5. Africa should target other alternative financial institutions for loan and aid such as Islamic Development Banks, Islamic Banks in Asia and Europe and other Islamic sources of bonds such as Sukuk, Takaful for developing local economies and 6. Africa must have the political will for the above to be implemented the youth successfully in African countries must wake up to elect patriotic and incorruptible leaders that can pursue such policies and programmes as against the present crops of leaders that seem as a sellout and compromising.