African Entrepreneurship Record-Chapter 600 - 278 East America’s "Westward Movement

Sigmaringen is cost-effective, and East Africa is also cost-effective. East Africa’s material and labor costs are not high in themselves. During the previous railway construction, a large portion benefited freely from the global steel capacity surplus due to the economic crisis of 1873.

Now that various steel plants in East Africa are in production, meeting its own needs is no longer an issue. As for labor costs, building this railway is nothing compared to current water conservancy projects.

East Africa completed its planning for steel, railway, and related industries over the course of the seventies, and in these two fields, it should be said to be on the same level as Russia; the quantity is adequate, though the quality is relatively rough.

To get things done in East Africa, money is one aspect, and resource allocation is another aspect. With an annual steel production capacity of one million tons, East Africa’s state-owned enterprises, East Africa Steel and East Africa Railway, have already become conglomerates in their respective fields.

Meanwhile, the steel production level of England and America during the same period is over 1.3 million tons, which is lower than before the economic crisis. The 1873 economic crisis at least caused one-third of steel enterprises in both countries to go bankrupt, and the economy continues to remain sluggish now.

In contrast, East Africa experienced extensive economic development throughout the seventies, acquiring numerous bankrupt steel companies and manufacturing equipment from Europe and America. Through a national system and Ernst’s knowledge of East African mineral resources, East African steel enterprises grew rapidly and secured an important share in the world.

The most direct beneficiaries are East Africa’s military industrial enterprises and railway enterprises, while demand for steel in other fields is also very strong. Typically during the seventies, East Africa’s agricultural machinery had improved in terms of materials and quality, further promoting the release of East African agricultural productivity and paving the foundation for various engineering projects in East Africa.

As the seventies ended, East Africa’s railway industry got on track, reducing the actual demand for steel, with more steel capacity entering other fields or even being available for export to the international market.

So now East Africa’s steel production, when compared to other countries, is actually excessive. If East Africa were a free market nation, its steel industry would definitely undergo large-scale bankruptcy and restructuring, while East Africa has consistently practiced a planned economy, resulting in the country remaining in a state of overall deflation.

In fact, by 1880, the American Westward Movement had basically concluded, while East Africa was completing its own Westward Movement. The inland is under development, and by 1890, East Africa’s central region, primarily the Matebel Province, Hohenzollern Province, and Swabia Province, is expected to reach the current level of development of the eastern region.

East Africa’s Westward Movement is quite different from America’s. First, in terms of industry, the American Westward Movement primarily focused on agricultural development, while East Africa emphasized industry more.

As mentioned earlier, most of East Africa’s mineral resources are distributed in central regions, so most of East Africa’s recent industrial investments have been in the inland, the most prominent being the metallurgy industries like steel, railway, and copper mining.

In contrast, America’s resources in the west evidently cannot match those in the northeast part of the country, so the most iconic result of the American Westward Movement is cowboys and farms; of course, the frenzy of railway construction is similar. Previously, America simultaneously built five railways between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, while during the same period, East Africa only had one Central Railway, half a Two-Ocean Railway (due to Portuguese Angola, the Atlantic connection was incomplete).

Indeed, the timing of railway construction in East Africa is slightly later than that in America, with the economic crisis of 1873 being a dividing line. Although America seemed chaotic nationwide post-crisis, the economic shrinkage was still not insignificant. In other words, economic data heavily inflated, and stock and investment markets raised railway values above their rightful place.

Conversely, East Africa’s railway output value is more objectively real, because the East African government doesn’t need to inflate railway value.

Another reason why East Africa’s Westward Movement emphasized industry is that the eastern agriculture is already quite complete and developed. Before the Westward Movement, East Africa’s eastern grain production capacity was quite notable globally.

In contrast, industrial development in East Africa’s east was not advanced, while the rise of coastal industrial cities like Dar es Salaam and Mombasa was significantly boosted by the momentum of the Westward Movement.

Before this, Dar es Salaam and Mombasa were still cities, but they did not emphasize industrial development and served as national-level goods distribution centers and service industry centers.

With the completion of Central Railway and Northern Railway construction, two cities were endowed with rich industrial assets; for instance, the railway locomotive manufacturing center remained in the east because this is where East Africa’s two major railways begin.

But this is just the initial industrial investment East Africa had to make, and upon the completion of the two major railways, the focus of East Africa’s industrial investment immediately shifted to the central region taking priority, as transportation improvements provided conditions for industrial development in the central three provinces.

Industrial layout in this era still prioritized raw material origins rather than later generations’ market orientations, this is particularly evident in industries like steel and mining.

This is the significant reason why East Africa, despite starting industrialization simultaneously with Japan, managed to quickly widen the gap with Japan to the point where Japan couldn’t even see East Africa’s shadow—in Japan, there was scant mineral resource, making it hard to cook a meal without rice.

Furthermore, East Africa’s version of the Westward Movement was entirely led by the East African government, while in the American Westward Movement, the government only served a guiding role and rarely intervened subsequently.

Hence, East Africa’s inland development is purposeful, planned, organized, and gradual, while America’s was wild, disorderly, chaotic, with fierce competition.

In comparison, East African government forces cleared inland threats, organized guided immigration orderly, reasonably laid out industries, with hardly any setbacks in between.

On the other hand, the American West faced a shortage of police forces from the start, conflicting armed groups, reckless massacres of Native Indians, rampant robberies and vendetta killings, reminiscent of a vivid scene of gang rule.

However, America’s development model naturally had both disadvantages and advantages, with plenty of drawbacks and also many merits. In the early stage, government input was minimal; America is a typical small government, finding tax collection challenging, with limited funds, forcing reliance on civil power.

After all, America’s history of armed taxation spans less than twenty years, with the Internal Revenue Service founded in 1862 to raise funds during the Civil War, only to be quickly abandoned after the war.

Moreover, America’s Westward Movement under intense competition represented opportunities, especially for ordinary people, being ruthless could rapidly accumulate vast wealth, creating many early-rich groups; unraveling how big and small banks and train robberies birthed numerous American wealthy individuals is an unknown.

Comparatively, East Africa appears petty, as the East African government contributed significantly, naturally taking away most of the wealth and profits, only meeting migrants’ basic subsistence needs.

The East African government is a typical formidable national apparatus; under the army, police, and other violent forces, crime has little soil to exist, and screened East African citizens are typically manageable, small farmers and workers.

Two development paths, people see what they see, wise ones see their wisdom. But in the end, America and East Africa’s west have been effectively developed, except America’s Westward Movement took over a hundred years, while East Africa took less than ten years.

Though East Africa’s Westward Movement focused on the industrial sector, East Africa’s overall level of industrialization was originally not high, agricultural investment still occupied the primary position.