BUILD COMMUNITY NEWS MAGAZINE

Category: Business

Categories
Business Long Title Post Market

China-Africa bilateral trade data overview

Leidanett was living a life of almost unfathomable despair a year ago no one knows (1995)

 

1. CHINA-AFRICA BILATERAL TRADE DATA OVERVIEW

China-Africa bilateral trade has been steadily increasing for the past 16 years. However, weak commodity prices since 2014 have greatly impacted the value of African exports to China, even while Chinese exports to Africa remained steady. Our data includes North Africa.

  • The value of China–Africa trade in 2018 was $185 bn, up from $155 bn in 2017.
  • In 2018, the largest exporter to China from Africa was Angola, followed by South Africa and The Republic of Congo.
  • In 2018, South Africa was the largest buyer of Chinese goods, followed by Nigeria and Egypt.

China Africa Trade Feb2020.PNG

2. CARI TRADE DATA COMPILATION

While U. N. Comtrade and Chinese government sources do not report the exact same trade figures, the two sources are very close. For consistency, we provided all Comtrade data for users to download. We also included U.S. trade with Africa for comparison. CARI only provides data as reported by the Chinese government in order to maintain consistency. Trade reports from African governments are less consistent in both their frequency and reporting standards.*

3. DATA

3.1 Official data

The General Administration of Customs of the PRC compiles and reports quarterly and annual bilateral trade statistics on their website. The Customs is the first to report the most updated trade data, and usually does so in both English and Chinese. However, there are several caveats to using their data. First of all, while the figures reported are denominated in US$, they are either in ten thousands of US$ or hundreds of thousands of US$ (wan or yi), instead of the more familiar millions. Secondly, the reports are only available in PDF instead of data-friendly formats such as comma separated values file. Finally, the China Customs’ data only goes back 2 years.

China Statistical Yearbook (CSY) is another source for trade data. CSY receives their information from the China Customs, and their records go back further. Since it is published annually, there is a one year lag in their data, and their data cannot be retroactively updated. Though most of their files are available for download in Excel, the formats of the datasets vary from year to year, including the order of countries.

U.N. Comtrade’s trade data are based on reports made by individual countries or downloaded by Comtrade from official sources. Comtrade data closely matches that of China Statistical Yearbooks and China Customs. Comtrade data is continuously updated.

3.2 Other data sources

Currently there are no other sources that are more reliable than those provided by the Chinese government and the U. N.

*Note: Figures for Chinese imports from South Africa as reported by the Chinese government are much larger than those reported by the South African government. It is believed that this disparity is caused by differences in valuing mineral goods. For Chinese imports from South Africa, CARI uses figures as reported by the South African government. Please be aware of this if you are using the dataset for research purposes, and please contact www.sais-cari.org if you have any questions.

Categories
Money World

Many Countries at Risk of Defaulting on Debt to China

China has given billions of dollars in loans to developing countries but now, as COVID-19 has increased the pace of record global debt levels, countries could be at risk of defaulting and China’s carefully cultivated relationships could be about to unravel.

In 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the launch of the “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI), an ambitious multi-billion project dubbed the Chinese Marshall Plan, which China says is to improve economic connectivity and cooperation across the globe.

Consisting of overland corridors and maritime shipping lanes, the scheme involves 71 countries and half of the world’s population. China says the initiative is an economic stimulus package, designed to help state-owned businesses in what it sees as a win-win situation. Critics have accused it of being a scheme with the aim of creating a Chinese-centered order.

China’s lending to countries in Africa was $152 billion between 2000 and 2018, according to the South China Morning Post, much of which was spent on Belt and Road Initiative projects. It’s become known as “debt-trap diplomacy”, where a country loans money with the intention of political or economic concessions if the loan cannot be repaid.

Should any country default, it is feared that a similar situation could arise to the one in Sri Lanka, where the government was unable to service debt on the port. It was then leased by the government to Chinese firms on a 99-year lease. The U.S. has expressed concern that the port could be used by China as a naval base.

The Trump administration has repeatedly warned African nations that accepting Chinese loans could result in them losing control over strategic assets too. It has warned that a strategic port in the tiny Horn of Africa nation of Djibouti could succumb to the same fate, a prospect the government there has denied.

Categories
Business Technology

Uber and Lyft faced tough questions from California judges as they seek to keep classifying drivers as contractors

Business Insider
Tyler Sonnemaker    October 13, 2020

A California appeals court heard arguments on Tuesday from Uber and Lyft as they appeal a recent ruling that would force the companies to reclassify drivers as employees.

A lower court determined in August that Uber and Lyft drivers are employees, not contractors, under the state’s gig work law, AB-5, but delayed enforcing the ruling while the companies appeal it.

Uber, Lyft, and other gig companies have fought AB-5 aggressively, pouring more than $180 million into a ballot measure aimed at California voters that would permanently exempt them from the law.

Dara Khosrowshahi logan green

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi and Lyft CEO Logan Green Laura Buckman/Reuters; Carlo Allegri/Reuters

The companies argue reclassifying drivers as employees will reduce their flexibility, while proponents of AB-5 say Uber and Lyft’s business models rely on underpaying drivers and skirting labor laws.

A California appeals court heard oral arguments Tuesday from Uber, Lyft, and the state over whether a lower court reached the right conclusion in August when it ruled that the companies’ drivers are employees under the state’s gig work law, AB-5.

Judges from California’s first district Court of Appeal pressed lawyers for Uber and Lyft over drivers’ wages and autonomy, and questioned the companies’ arguments that AB-5 would require them to reduce drivers’ flexibility, according to The Washington Post and The New York Times reporter Kate Conger.

The judges also asked a lawyer for the state about potential harms to Uber and Lyft and drivers’ preferences around their employment status, according to reports.

The landmark case could fundamentally alter the contractor-based business model that Uber and Lyft have relied on, and the companies are aggressively fighting the law in court and via a ballot measure that California voters will decide on in November.

AB-5, which went into effect at the beginning of this year, allows companies to treat workers as independent contractors instead of employees only if workers meet three criteria: they’re “free from the control and direction” of the company; they perform work “outside the usual course” of the company’s business; and they’re “customarily engaged” in their own independent business.

California state and city attorneys general sued Uber and Lyft in May over their refusal to comply with the law, arguing that ride-hailing drivers don’t pass that test. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman sided with the state in August, ruling that Uber and Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees, but the ruling was stayed by Schulman and again by the appellate court while the companies appeal.

In Tuesday’s oral arguments, Uber lawyer Theodore Boutrous Jr. argued the ruling would cause “irreparable harm” and that “Uber would have to turn into a different company” and cut jobs if the ruling is upheld, The Washington Post reported.

But according to Conger, Judge Brown questioned Uber on that claim, asking what part of AB-5 would require the company to reduce drivers’ flexibility.

Uber and Lyft have focused heavily on flexibility in their opposition to the law, citing drivers’ alleged preference to work as contractors, but critics of the business model say it allows the companies to cut costs by depriving drivers of protections like minimum wage, health insurance, and unemployment insurance that other California workers are entitled to.

Matthew Goldberg, a lawyer from the San Francisco city attorney’s office, responded to a question about drivers’ preferences by saying “employees should not have the right to work without those underlying benefits. … You are not permitted to work for less than the minimum wage, even if you want to.”

When pressed by the judges on potential harms to Uber and Lyft, Goldberg responded that every other company follows the law and so Uber and Lyft should have to as well, The New York Times’ Kate Conger tweeted. He also said Uber and Lyft were causing harm to drivers: “This is dollars and wages and money that is being stolen from drivers by virtue of the misclassification.”

Uber and Lyft have repeatedly claimed that the law doesn’t apply to them in the first place — an argument Lyft lawyer Rohit Singla brought up again Tuesday, while Boutrous cited changes Uber has made to its app that should exempt its drivers, according to The Washington Post.

But the judges appeared skeptical, Conger reported, pointing out that Uber still sets the base fare for drivers.

They also cast doubt on Lyft’s claim that underpayment of drivers’ wages isn’t irreparable harm, according to The Washington Post, with one asking: “Are you suggesting that the specter of thousands of individual claims for back wages is something that is insignificant and something that need not be considered in balancing the appropriateness of an injunction at this point?”

California’s Labor Commission brought a separate lawsuit against Uber and Lyft over the same issue in August, alleging they’ve been committing wage theft by classifying drivers as contractors.

Uber and Lyft have sought to head off a potential loss in court by pouring more than $180 million into a ballot measure, Proposition 22, that would exempt ride-hail and food delivery workers from AB-5. That’s the most money ever used to back a ballot measure in the state, according to Ballotpedia.

Uber and Lyft also came under fire earlier this week after SF Gate reported that the companies indirectly funded ballot guides sent to California voters urging them to vote for Proposition 22 by falsely claiming to be affiliated with Sen. Bernie Sanders and other “progressive” groups.

Both Sen. Sanders and the California Democratic Party have opposed the measure.