Archived Articles

Simeon Mitropolitski is a Canadian analyst, of Bulgarian origin, and a former syndicated columnist with the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). He is the author of several hundred articles dealing with hot political and economic topics, both national and international.

He was part of the first group of Bulgarian intellectuals and students that began the opposition movement that finally put an end to the communist regime in this country in 1989, and in 1996-1997 participated in international observation teams during the elections in several Balkan countries - Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.

In 2002 Simeon and his family moved from Bulgaria to Canada where they live now in Montreal, province of Quebec. Simeon is a Master of Political Science from McGill University and a B.A. of Political Science and History.

Global Real Estate Project
News Index

Directories
  Int'l Realty
  US Realty

Namibia and Botswana are two African countries, small in terms of population but large in terms of territory. They are located just north of South Africa. What they have in common, as most other African nations, is their colonial past to some European powers. What they also have in common, but unlike most other sub-Sahara countries, is that they defy the usual western stereotypes about the region with some possible exception of South Africa. These two countries enjoy average living standard that either touches or comfortably fills in the range of middle-income nations. They have something to show and teach their northern neighbors in what seems necessary in order to achieve better life. Instead of importing western expertise into Africa, an expertise that is usually hard to export and even harder to understand, it would be better to try to copy the good performance of Botswana and Namibia into other less developed countries.

Numbers speak for themselves, but they should be taken with some precaution. Botswana and Namibia both have living standards much higher than the average sub-Sahara nations, perhaps even higher than those in South Africa in the case of Botswana, but the national wealth is distributed unevenly among the population, half of which lives barely better than in any other poor African country. On the other hand, the remaining half enjoys life comparable to some middle-income countries from other continents sharing the same climate conditions. The real estate market is sufficiently developed and the regulations are fairly comparable to those that we may find in most developed countries. The residential prices are comparable to some less costly cities in the richest countries.

Botswana and Namibia have somehow different history in terms of European colonization that kept control over their territories for many decades. This detail puts away the simple explanation that their relative economic success has something to do with their specific colonial past. If that was the case, then how could we explain the relative non-development of many other African countries that share the same colonial patterns with either Botswana or Namibia? They also don't have identical political history, which also makes impossible to draw definitive conclusion that somehow the political factor has predetermined the economic outcomes. Nevertheless, among them, the country with longer democratic history, Botswana, looks better on most fronts. Unlike Namibia, however, Botswana is a landlocked country, which by itself is a further obstacle for trade and economic development. The facts prove that this obstacle isn't very important or isn't decisive when there is some political will to move the country forward with moderation.

Namibia and Botswana have plenty of natural resources that are sufficiently developed and exported to the world markets. This factor is especially important in the current economic situation. But most sub-Sahara countries are also blessed with mineral wealth. The secret(s) of the relative economic success of these two countries in particular are complex and shouldn't be reduced to only one or two decisive factors. On the other hand, looking for the reasons to explain the relative success of these countries may have beneficial effects to many other nations in the region. Most of the western economic prescriptions for Africa have failed, maybe because they were perceived as just other forms of colonial intervention. Perhaps the key isn't to import western models, but to adapt some models that have been endogenously developed in countries like Botswana and Namibia, and which have already produced excellent results.

Profile of Namibia:

• Area: 825,418 sq km
• Population: 2 million (July 2008 est.).
• Life expectancy at birth: 49.89 years (2008 est.).
• HIV/AIDS (adult population): 21.3% (2003 est.).
• GDP per capita: purchasing power parity $7,300 (2004 est.).
• GDP real growth rate: 4.4% (2007 est.).
• Population below poverty line: 50% (2003 est.).
• Distribution of family income (Gini index): 70 (2003).
• Internet users: 80,000 (2005).

Profile of Botswana:

• Area: 600,370 sq km.
• Population: 1.8 million (July 2008 est.).
• Life expectancy at birth: 50.16 years (2005 est.).
• HIV/AIDS (adult population): 37.3% (2003 est.).
• GDP per capita: purchasing power parity $16,400 (2007 est.).
• GDP real growth rate: 5.4% (2007 est.).
• Population below poverty line: 30% (2003 est.).
• Distribution of family income (Gini index): 63 (2003).
• Internet users: 60,000 (2005).

(Source: CIA World Factbook 2008)

--------------------

See also the directory of companies providing real estate services in, and general real estate information of Botswana and Namibia.