Economic Integration in Tanzania: A Biophysical Assessment

R E S E A R C H & A N A LYS I S

Economic Integration in Tanzania(1970–2011)A Biophysical Assessment

Mariko L. Frame

Summary

This article assesses the impact of economic integration on Tanzania’s sociometabolicprofile for the years 1970–2011, which witnessed an opening and further integration ofTanzania’s economy through increased trade and foreign investment, through a time-serieseconomy-wide material flows analysis (EW-MFA). The EW-MFA results show that contraryto the trade patterns of many developing countries, increased economic integration hasresulted in Tanzania becoming a net importer of resources across all material categorieswhen measured by the physical trade balance indicator. Additionally, the article discussesthe conceptual and empirical challenges of measuring ecologically unequal exchange withEW-MFAs for developing countries whose export profiles are dominated by lightweight,high-value precious stones and metals. It also assesses the degree to which the Tanzanianeconomy has undergone dematerialization over the past 40 years of economic integration.

Keywords:

dematerializationecologically unequal exchangeeconomic integrationeconomy wide material flows analysis

(EW-MFA)societal metabolismTanzania

Supporting information is availableon the JIE Web site

IntroductionTanzania, one of the world’s poorest economies in terms of

per capita income, is a resource-rich country, endowed withvaluable resources, arable land, and an extensive coastal re-gion. As with other African countries, in a global ecologicalcontext of limited supplies and increasing demand, its resourcesare attracting global attention (Carmody 2011). Also as withother African countries, in the 1980s Tanzania embarked onInternational Monetary Fund– and World Bank–led structuraladjustment reforms. After years of state interventionism, thesereforms encouraged integration with the world market throughinternational trade and the opening of Tanzanian resources toforeign investment as key strategies for economic growth anddevelopment (Campbell and Loxley 1989).

The neoliberal structural adjustment policies in Africa havebeen criticized for a number of reasons, including failure topromote growth and diversify African economies (Mkandawire2005). Importantly, since the era of structural reforms there

Address correspondence to: Mariko Lin Frame, Email: [email protected]

© 2015 by Yale UniversityDOI: 10.1111/jiec.12350 Editor managing review: Heinz Schandl

Volume 00, Number 0

has been a notable trend of deindustrialization across manyAfrican economies. The share of manufacturing in Africa’s grossdomestic product (GDP) dropped from 15% in 1990 to 10% in2008 (UNCTAD 2012). Most growth in Sub-Saharan Africaneconomies is attributable to the extraction and exporting ofresources rather than activities of higher productivity, either inthe agricultural or industrial sectors (UNCTAD 2012). Socioe-conomically, this trend poses challenges to equitable and inte-grated economic development, given that extractive economiesare typically plagued by mining enclaves that lack linkages tothe broader economy and collapse after resources are depleted(Bunker 1985; UNCTAD 2005). Bunker (1985) used the term“extractive economy” to denote economies whose export pro-files are dominated by extractives, and it is used in this sense inthis article. This trend is also problematic in terms of sustainabil-ity given that it involves the intensive export of nonrenewableresources and environmental burdens associated with mining(UNCTAD 2005; Frame 2014).

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jie Journal of Industrial Ecology 1


This article seeks to contribute to the literature assessing thebiophysical implications of structural reforms and economic in-tegration for African countries through the construction of aclassical economy-wide material flows account (EW-MFA) forTanzania for the years 1970–2011. Material flow accounting andanalyses (MFAs) are standardized accounting systems that com-prehensively capture the relationship between socioeconomicand natural systems. Though a number of full time-series EW-MFAs have been constructed for countries globally, few havebeen constructed for African countries. This article presentsone of the first time-series EW-MFAs for an African country,Tanzania, covering the years 1970–2011 consecutively. Theseyears are significant because they coincide with the implemen-tation of economic nationalist policies under postindependenceleader Nyerere and their subsequent replacement with neolib-eral structural adjustments in Tanzania. Specifically, this articleaddresses the following questions:

1. How have the structural reforms encouraging eco-nomic integration and export-led growth affected thesociometabolic profile of Tanzania, especially Tanzania’strade patterns from a biophysical perspective? In partic-ular, have the reforms resulted in “ecologically unequalexchange” for Tanzania?

2. Has this export-oriented development engendered dema-terialization and more-sustainable economic growth?

3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of utilizing a clas-sical EW-MFA to evaluate the biophysical implicationsof such development strategies, as well as ecologically un-equal exchange? In particular, what are the problems thatarise for economies dominated by lightweight, high-valueprecious stones and metals, such as Tanzania’s?

Economic Integration and Ecologically UnequalExchange

A number of theorists have argued that, through inter-national trade, high-income, developed countries are able toshift their environmental burdens onto low-income, develop-ing countries (Hornborg 2001, 2011; Andersson and Lindroth2001; Bunker 1985; Jorgenson and Clark 2009; Muradian et al.2002; Rice 2009). According to ecologically unequal exchange(EUE) theory, there is an overall asymmetrical transfer of nat-ural resources and sink capacity (the capacity of the Earth’secosystems to absorb waste and pollution) from low-income“peripheral” countries to high-income “core” countries throughinternational trade (Hornborg 2001, 2011). Unlike proponentsof the theory of comparative advantage, who argue that thispattern is mutually beneficial (Bhagwati 2003), EUE theoristscontend that this pattern is detrimental to peripheral envi-ronments, leading to problems of sustainability, declining en-vironmental utilization opportunities, and the imposition ofexogenous environmental burdens (Rice 2009).

EW-MFAs have been used as one primary empirical method-ology for assessing the extent to which ecologically unequalexchange occurs. Overall, researchers employing EW-MFA

methodology have found that natural resource exports pre-dominantly move from the periphery to industrialized coun-tries (Roberts and Parks 2007; Giljum and Eisenmenger 2004;UNEP 2011), which, some argue, provides empirical evidencethat the periphery serves as a resource tap for industrializedcountries (Hornborg 2011). Case studies of Latin Americancountries also have found that the physical trade balance (PTB)deficit (imports minus exports in physical weight) of individ-ual countries has increased as (monetary) terms of trade forprimary commodities have deteriorated, given that develop-ing countries have undergone neoliberal structural adjustmentspushing export-led growth. Such a trend has been accompaniedwith large-scale environmental loss precipitated through min-ing activities, oil extraction, and cash crops agricultural produc-tion (Manrique et al. 2013; Vallejo 2010; Perez-Rincon 2006;Muradian and Martinez-Alier 2001; Shandra et al. 2008).

Recent studies, however, demonstrate the necessity for amore nuanced model of EUE. Some studies have found that sev-eral emerging economies, particularly in Asia, have become netimporters of resources (Singh and Eisenmenger 2010). Perhapsthe most important challenge to EUE has come from a studyby Moran and colleagues (2013). Unlike other studies, whichrely on only one or two environmental indicators, Moran andcolleagues (2013) utilize eight different indicators of environ-mental pressure across 187 countries. Their evidence supportsone of the major propositions of EUE theory—that exportsfrom developing nations are more ecologically intensive (con-tain more embodied environmental impact per dollar sold) thanthose from developed nations. Contrary to ecologically unequalexchange theory, they find evidence that high-income nationsare mostly exporters, not importers, of biophysical resources.

Overall, it appears that there is evidence supporting certainpropositions of EUE, especially for particular countries. How-ever, the extent to which all aspects of ecologically unequalexchange theory characterize the entire global economy, andthe extent to which policies of increased economic integrationmay affect ecologically unequal exchange, still require furtherinvestigation.

Tanzania’s Socioeconomic Overview

Tanzania’s socioeconomic profile embodies many charac-teristics of a “peripheral” economy. In world systems theory,core countries are characterized by high levels of industrial-ization, economic diversification, technological advancement,relatively high-paid labor, and generally export high-level man-ufactured goods. In contrast, peripheral countries are character-ized by low levels of economic diversification, low-paid labor,and labor- intensive production. Typically, they export rawmaterials while being dependent upon the import of high-levelmanufactures and technology (Wallerstein 1979).

In terms of per capita income, Tanzania is one of the world’spoorest economies. Though Tanzania has achieved high eco-nomic growth at around 7% in recent years, the benefits havenot been inclusive. As of 2012, the poverty headcount ratio atthe national poverty line was 28.2% (World Bank 2014a) and

2 Journal of Industrial Ecology


the GDP per capita was US$609 in 2012 (World Bank 2014b).Further, Tanzania is a highly unequal society. The lowest 10%of the population held only 2.8% of household income, whereasthe highest 10% held 29.6% of household income as of 2007(IFAD Tanzania website 2013). The poorest 40%, and mostof the income groups in between, actually saw their share ofincome decline between 2000 and 2007 (Africa Progress Panel2013).

Despite decades of structural adjustment, the majority ofthe labor force’s livelihoods continue to depend on low-productivity, subsistence farming. Agriculture accounts formore than one quarter of GDP and employs approximately80% of the workforce. The remaining 20% of the workforceare employed in industry and services. Though manufacturingactivities have grown at an average annual growth rate of over4%, manufacturing is still at a relatively incipient stage andconcentrated in the manufacture of simple consumer goods,such as food, beverages, tobacco, textiles, furniture, and woodallied products (Index Mundi Website 2013).

Structural adjustment reforms in Tanzania encouraged in-ternational trade as well as the opening of Tanzanian resourcesto foreign investment. However, the social and environmentalconsequences are ambiguous at best. According to some reports,owing to Tanzania’s structural adjustment program, 25% of thenation’s forests were lost between 1980 and 1993, almost halfresulting from cultivation of export crops (Tockman 2001).

The Tanzanian mining code introduced in 1998 allowed100% foreign ownership and guarantees against nationalizationand expropriation (UNCTAD 2005), a significant policy rever-sal from a country that once sought to build development basedon African socialism and institute indigenous control over themeans of production (Crouch 1987). Further, the mining codeoffers unrestricted repatriation of profits and capital, pegs theroyalty rate at a maximum of a mere 3%, provides waivers inrespect to import duties, tax exemptions on imported machin-ery, equipment and other inputs, and waives requirement forlocal procurement of goods and services (UNCTAD 2005).

Gold is Tanzania’s dominant export and attracts the high-est levels of foreign investment. Currently, two foreign miningcompanies dominate the gold sector: the Canadian company,Barrick Gold Corporation, and the South African–based An-gloGold Ashanti. Critics argue that Foreign Direct Investment(FDI) structural adjustment policies have resulted in consid-erable loss of potential revenue for the Tanzanian govern-ment. A report by Curtis and Lissu (2008) estimated thatbetween 1997 and 2005, Tanzania exported gold worth morethan US$2.54 billion. The government, however, only receivedaround US$28 million a year in royalties and taxes on these ex-ports. Further, foreign investment in the mining sector has beenplagued by secrecy, as well as social protest, given that miningcontracts are perceived as largely benefiting foreign investorsand an elite Tanzanian class over ordinary citizens (Frame 2014;REPOA 2012).

In terms of its trade structure, economic integration hasarguably not resulted in greater economic diversification.Tanzania’s economy continues to be dominated by the export

of primary commodities, particularly gold, as well as agriculturalproducts and some low-level manufactured goods. As with otherperipheral economies, Tanzania remains reliant upon importsfor important consumer goods, machinery, and transportationequipment, in addition to industrial raw materials and crudeoil (Index Mundi website 2013). Figure 1 displays Tanzania’sexport structure by sector in 1997 and 2011, with each sector’ssignificance shown, in monetary terms, as a percentage of totalexports. Primary commodities from animals, vegetables, andbasic derived products has decreased as a percentage of overallexports in monetary terms from approximately 70% in 1997 to24% in 2011. On the other hand, metals, nonmetallic minerals,fossil fuels (FFs), and basic derived products have increaseddramatically as a percentage of overall exports in monetaryterms, rising from approximately 6% in 1997 to around 66%in 2011, reflecting largely the importance of gold exports.Precious stones and metals alone account for approximately40% of total exports. The textile sector also saw a drop fromits 1997 levels of approximately 22% to only around 4.5% in2011 of total exports. Higher-level manufactures, includingvarious machinery, rose marginally from 1.4% in 1997 toapproximately 4.7% in 2011 of total exports.

In contrast, as figure 2 shows, as a percentage, Tanzania’s im-ports are dominated by metals, nonmetallic minerals, FFs, de-rived industrial products, and higher-level manufactured goods.In 2011, the two single largest import categories in monetaryterms were vehicles and mineral products. Tanzania’s importstructure reflects a typical peripheral structure in its relianceupon imports of higher-level manufactured goods, such as ma-chinery and vehicles, though it also shows reliance on the im-port of nonmetallic minerals and FFs. In particular, Tanzaniaimports oil at a cost of an estimated US$1.3billion to US$1.6billion per year, accounting for up to 25% of total foreign ex-change earnings (Tanzania Natural Resource Forum 2009). Im-ports have continued to increase, at a faster rate than exports,owing to increasing demand for physical capital and intermedi-ate goods (REPOA 2012).

Overall, despite decades of structural adjustment, Tanzaniaremains a peripheral economy in terms of its overall trade struc-ture as well as the majority of its labor obtaining their livelihoodfrom low-income, rural subsistence farming.

Methodology: Economy-wide MaterialFlows Accounting and Analysis

Socioeconomic metabolism refers to flows of materials andenergy between society and nature (Fischer-Kowalski and Weisz1999). MFA is an accounting system that measures resourceflows in physical units and is used as the operational toolfor societal metabolism (Schandl and Schulz 2000; Eurostat2001, 2009, 2012). In general, MFAs consider four major typesof resources, which are accounted in terms of their weight(measured in tonnes): biomass; FFs; nonmetallic minerals; andmetal ores.

In this study, inputs from the natural environment that enterthe economic system, or “domestic extraction” are accounted

Frame, Biophysical Assessment of the Tanzanian Economy 3


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Animals, vegetables,

and basic derived

products

Metals, fossil fuels,

non-metallic

minerals and basic

derived products

Textiles and other

clothing/gear

Higher level

manufactures

1997

2011

Figure 1 Tanzania export sector by percentage of total exports in monetary terms, 1997 and 2011. Source: UNCOMTRADE exportdata, United Republic of Tanzania Economic Survey (United Republic of Tanzania 2009), and author’s aggregation of data into categories.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Animals, vegetables

and basic derived

products

Metals, non-metallic

minerals, fossil fuels

and basic derived

products

Textiles and other

clothing/gear

Higher level

manufactures

1997

2011

Figure 2 Tanzania import sector by percentage of total imports in monetary terms, 1997 and 2011. Source: UNCOMTRADE importdata, Tanzania United Republic of Tanzania Economic Survey (2009), and author’s aggregation of data into categories.

for, but unused extraction, or materials that are moved butnever enter the economic system for further use (e.g., suchas overburden from mining) are not. This does not diminishthe importance of unused materials. However, the necessarycoefficients for such calculations for Tanzania have not yet beenestablished. As such, this study is primarily concerned withthe following indicators: domestic extraction (DE); domesticmaterial consumption (DMC); domestic material input (DMI);and PTB.

The PTB is the EW-MFA indicator that has been used tomeasure ecologically unequal exchange given that it revealswhether a country is a net importer or net exporter in physicalterms. There are, however, several limitations of EW-MFAs inregard to measuring EUE. For one, MFA analysis aggregatesmany different qualities of material flows in order to deriveaggregated indicators. Resultantly, aggregate MFA indicatorscan be dominated by particular materials whose weight is high,whereas other material groups with relatively less weight can beobscured (Giljum 2004).

Another issue is the fact that weight-based MFA indica-tors do not reveal anything about actual environmental im-pacts. Whereas this is not a criticism against MFAs, giventhat MFAs are not meant to measure impact, it does pointtoward the challenge of empirical measurement owing to differ-ing definitions of ecologically unequal exchange. For example,Hornborg (2001) defines EUE as an asymmetrical transfer of re-sources (and in general “productive potential”) from peripheralto core regions. Such a definition is arguably compatible withthe use of the MFA methodology. Rice (2009), however, definesEUE as:

. . . .the environmentally damaging withdrawal of energyand other natural resource assets from the periphery and theaddition or externalization of environmentally damagingproduction and disposal activities within the periphery ofthe world system. It constitutes both the obtainment ofnatural capital, or the stocks of natural resources, that yieldimportant goods and services and the usurpation ofsink-capacity or waste assimilation properties of ecologicalsystems in a manner enlarging the domestic carryingcapacity of industrialized countries to the detriment ofperipheral societies. (p. 221)

Rice’s definition more explicitly involves the issue of “im-pact.” Conceptual clarity in the definition of ecologically un-equal exchange is vital to future empirical studies of EUE. In thecase of Rice’s definition, an EW-MFA would not be a sufficientmethodology to empirically measure EUE.

Another important issue, particularly for extractiveeconomies such as Tanzania, is that standard EW-MFA in-dicators only register the weight of traded commodities at pointof entry into and exit from a country (UNEP 2011). They donot include indirect flows, which refer to material requirementsalong production chains, both used and unused (e.g., overbur-den from mining), needed to manufacture and deliver productsto the national border (Giljum, 2004). Importantly, the biggestdifference between direct trade flows and trade flows includingindirect flows can be observed for countries that extract largeamounts of crude metal ores with low concentrations, but ex-port highly concentrated ores (UNEP 2011). However, DMC,equal to DE plus imports minus exports, does allow for the



comparison of domestic extraction with exports for each mate-rial category. For the case of metals, it provides the best quanti-tative representation given that it can show the huge amounts ofmaterial that need to be extracted for low amounts of exports.Data sources are listed in the Supporting Information avail-able on the Journal’s website. Please note that at the time ofwriting, trade data were available from 1976 until 2011, whereasproduction data were available from 1970 to 2010.

Results

Tanzania’s Sociometabolic Profile and EconomicIntegration

Domestic ExtractionDE includes all the raw materials extracted within a coun-

try’s territory. Figure 3 shows that all categories of Tanzania’s DEhave witnessed an absolute increase from the years 1970–2010.Tanzania’s DE is dominated primarily by biomass, reflectingTanzania’s agrarian-based economy. In Tanzania’s case, grazedbiomass is the largest category, increasing from 22,600,000 in1970 to 43,800,000 tonnes in 2010. Wood is the second largestcategory, increasing from 16,000,000 in 1970 to approximately25,000,000 tonnes in 2010. Metals are the second largest cat-egory of DE, and gold production is largely responsible for theincrease from the late 1990s to 2010. Gold constitutes almostentirely the metals DE category, in addition to some copper andsilver production. Nonmetallic minerals are the third largestcategory, with the bulk of materials being construction materi-als, in particular, sand. The smallest category is FFs. Tanzania isnot a significant producer of FFs. Overall, it produces only a rel-atively minor amount of coal and, since 2004, minor amounts ofnatural gas. FF DE increased overall from 2.7 thousand tonnesin 1970 to 662.4 thousand tonnes in 2010 (as a result of naturalgas being produced for the first time, as well as increases in coalextraction).

Physical Trade BalanceAfrica as a region is a net exporter of resources in terms

of physical weight, supporting the theory of EUE. Further,this trend has increased from the 1980s to the 2000s. Morespecifically, Africa is a net exporter in nonrenewables such asFFs and metals, but a net importer for biomass (UNCTAD2012). For Tanzania, imports (figure 4) in all categories haveincreased since 1987. For 2011, imports were dominated by FFs(approximately 40%), reflecting Tanzania’s heavy reliance onexternal sources of energy, especially oil. Biomass is the sec-ond largest category of imports, accounting for approximately20% of imports. The bulk of biomass imports are mainly ce-reals, sugar crops, and fibers. Metals constitute approximately11% of imports (especially iron and steel and products mainlymade from metals) and nonmetallic minerals approximately15.4% (mainly mining and quarrying materials, chemical fer-tilizers including sulphur and unroasted iron pyrites, clays andkaolin, and products made from nonmetallic minerals, mainlyglass and glassware). The last remaining category was “other”

at 4.5%, a category that includes highly processed goods fromvarious materials.

For exports (figure 5), all categories also witnessed growthsince the early 2000s. Tanzania’s main exports are biomass, ac-counting for approximately 57.3% of exports and comprisedmainly of cereals, vegetables, timber, and processed foodstuffs.Nonmetallic minerals were the next largest category (mainlymining and quarrying materials, chemical fertilizers includingsulphur and unroasted iron pyrites, clays and kaolin, and prod-ucts made from nonmetallic minerals, in particular, glass andglassware). Interestingly, for the nonmetallic minerals category,Tanzania is exporting very similar materials as it is importing.Despite their importance in monetary terms, metals comprisedonly 14.4% of exports, including iron, gold, precious metals,and products from metals. If indirect flows were included, thiscategory would most likely be much higher. FFs contributedonly a small amount of overall exports, approximately 2%, re-flecting the lack of endowment of FFs. The residual categoryof highly processed goods was only 4.6% in terms of physicalweight.1

The growth in DE, and in imports and exports, demonstratesTanzania’s increased integration into the world economy as aresult of the structural adjustments, particularly foreign invest-ment in Tanzania’s precious metals. Gold production had haltedcompletely in 1976 and 1977 during the era of economic na-tionalism. The first large-scale gold mines began productionin late 1998 (Curtis and Lissu 2008), corresponding to theTanzanian Mining Code of 1998, as mentioned above. As aresult, gold production increased dramatically to 18,800,000tonnes of gross ore in 2010. Also copper production began in2001, and silver production resumed again in 1998 after a lullbeginning in 1973.

The growth in imports, dominated by FFs (approximately40%), reflects Tanzania’s heavy reliance on external sources ofenergy. The increase in FF exports, mainly natural gas since2004, was spurred by foreign investment from energy compa-nies such as Statoil, Exxon Mobil, Ophir Energy, and BG Group(Long 2014). Similar to the rest of Africa (Rakotoarisoa andIafrate 2011), Tanzania is increasingly becoming reliant uponthe import of foodstuffs. This has been attributed to low pro-ductivity in the agricultural sector and the predominance ofsubsistence farming (Wolter n.d.).

In terms of PTBs (figure 6), in contrast to the broader trendon the African continent and many parts of the developingworld, Tanzania is a net importer of all material categories,meaning it has a net physical trade surplus for all material cate-gories. Further, Tanzania’s physical trade surplus has increasedfor the years 1976–2011, with the exception of biomass, whichhas shown fluctuations since 1980. Since 2000, many develop-ing nations globally have monetary trade surpluses and physicaltrade deficits, whereas many industrialized countries have mon-etary trade deficits and physical trade surpluses (UNEP 2011).In contrast, Tanzania has a monetary trade deficit and a physicaltrade surplus, indicating its reliance upon external resources tofulfill its consumption and production needs. It should be noted,however, that Tanzania’s physical trade surplus is much smaller



0

50,000

100,000

150,000

19

70

19

73

19

76

19

79

19

82

19

85

19

88

19

91

19

94

19

97

20

00

20

03

20

06

20

09

1000

to

nn

es

Fossil Fuels DE

Non-Metallic Minerals DE

Metals DE

Biomass DE

Figure 3 Tanzania Domestic Extraction (1,000 tonnes). Source: Author’s calculations.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

1000

to

nn

es

Non-Metallic Minerals Imports

Fossil Fuels Imports

Metals Imports

Biomass Imports

Other Imports

Figure 4 Tanzania physical imports (1,000 tonnes) from 1976 to 2011. Source: Author’s calculations. Tanzania physical imports (1,000tonnes) from 1976 to 2011. (Owing to data gaps, the data displayed cover only the years 1976–1981, 1987, and 1997–2011.) Please notethat UNCOMTRADE import data for 1987 for all material categories were, for unknown reasons, reported as “zero.”

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1000

to

nn

es

Fossil Fuels Exports

Non-Metallic Minerals Exports

Metals Exports

Biomass Exports

Other Exports

Figure 5 Tanzania physical exports (1,000 tonnes) from 1976 to 2011. Source: Author’s calculations. Tanzania physical exports (1,000tonnes) from 1976 to 2011. (Owing to data gaps, the data displayed cover only the years 1976–1981, 1987, and 1997–2011.)

than industrial countries. Tanzania had an overall PTB surplusof approximately 6,642,000 tonnes in 2009. Japan’s estimate for2009 was, in comparison, 551,705,000 tonnes in 2009.2 ThoughJapan’s population was only approximately 3 times largerthan Tanzania’s for the year 2009, Japan’s PTB was 83 timeslarger.

Domestic Material Input and Domestic MaterialConsumptionFigure 7 shows a comparison of the relative weight of imports

and exports as a percentage of domestic material input, theindicator that includes all materials entering the economy foruse, and is the sum of tonnes of domestic extraction plus tonnesof imports. It also shows that Tanzania’s economy is increasinglyrelying upon material input from global markets.

DMC (figure 8) provides information about the quantityof materials directly used by an economy and is equal to DE

plus imports minus exports. All DMC material categories haveincreased from 1976 to 2010. Data for the years 1982–1996 wereunavailable.

Population has steadily increased in Tanzania from16,480,000 in 1976 to 45,030,000 in 2010 (Index Mundi Web-site 2013). DMC has not kept pace with population growth,decreasing slightly from 3.77 tonnes per capita in 1976 to 3.21tonnes per capita in 2010. DMC biomass per capita declinedeven more sharply, from 3.6 tonnes per capita in 1976 to 2.5tonnes per capita in 2010. DMC per capita in Tanzania is lowerthan the average in Africa, which was 5.3 tonnes per capita in2008. DMC per capita in Africa is quite low, compared with theglobal average of 10.4 tonnes per capita (UNEP 2013). Africaalso accounts for only 3.2% of global carbon dioxide emissions.Such low energy and material consumption is largely owing toAfrica’s primarily agricultural mode of production (UNCTAD2012).



-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

1000

to

nn

es

PTB Other

PTB Non-Metallic Minerals

PTB Fossil Fuels

PTB Metals

PTB Biomass

1976

1978

1980

1987

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

Figure 6 Tanzania physical trade balances (PTB) by material category (1,000 tonnes) from 1976 to 2011. (A positive PTB value indicatesmore imports than exports.) Source: Author’s calculations. Tanzania physical trade balance (1,000 tonnes) from 1976 to 2011. (Owing todata gaps, the data displayed cover only the years 1976–1981, 1987, and 1997–2011.)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

19

76

19

77

19

78

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

87

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

IM/DMI as %

EX/DMI as %

Figure 7 Comparison of the relative weight of imports and exports (in % share of direct material input [DMI]) for Tanzania, 1976–2010.Source: Author’s calculations. Tanzania relative weight of imports and exports in % share of direct material input for 1976–2011. (Owing todata gaps, the data displayed cover only the years 1976–1981, 1987, and 1997–2010.)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

1000

to

nn

es

DMC Fossil Fuels

DMC Non-Metallic Minerals

DMC Metals

DMC Biomass

Figure 8 Tanzania domestic material consumption (1,000 tonnes), 1976–2010. Source: Author’s calculations. Tanzania domestic materialconsumption (1,000 tonnes) from 1976 to 2010. (Owing to data gaps, the data displayed cover only the years 1976–1981, 1987, and1997–2010.)

Material Intensity of Tanzania’s Economy:Dematerialization or Ecologically Intensive Exports?

This section examines the results of two methods used toassess dematerialization trends and the position countries holdin the global economy. Some have argued that it is possibleto calculate the material intensity of an economy by relatingDMC to GDP, that is, the amount of DMC needed to generatea unit of GDP (Russi et al. 2008). The goal of sustainableeconomic growth requires that countries undergo a process ofdematerialization, that is, increased decoupling of economicgrowth from material usage.

In terms of kilograms (kg) of domestic material consumptionper US$ GDP, in 2000 Tanzania used approximately 11.7 kg ofDMC of matter to produce US$1 of GDP, a very high amount of

material per unit of GDP. For instance, Chile in 2000 required9 kg DMC of matter to produce US$1 of GDP, and Peru requiredaround 8 kg. Both countries are considered to have high mate-rial intensity levels. In contrast, the European Union (EU)-15material intensity level was only 0.8 kg per U.S. dollar in 2000(Russi et al. 2009). Tanzania shows a weak dematerializationtrend given that by 2010 its level had dropped to approximately7.2 kg per U.S. dollar.3

Tanzania’s weak dematerialization does not appear to havebeen caused by a decrease in DE in any particular materialcategory. As noted above, in Tanzania’s case, all four major ma-terial categories as well as main materials within each categoryincreased in terms of DE. Given trade’s relatively minor role inphysical terms, it is likely that the weak dematerialization is a re-sult of (relatively small) changes in the contribution of different



sectors to GDP growth. Overall, the sectors that experiencedrelative growth as a percentage of GDP included mining, man-ufacturing, and public administration. Relative to other sectors,from 2000 to 2010, mining and quarrying had increased from1.5% to 3.3% of GDP, manufacturing from 8.8% to 9%, andconstruction from 5.2% to 8.0%. In addition, taxes on productshad increased from 6.5% to 9.3% of GDP, and public adminis-tration had increased from 6% to 8%. Agriculture, which hadconstituted 29.5% of GDP in 2000, decreased to 24.1% of GDPin 2010, and all other sectors had decreased as a percentage ofGDP from 2000 to 2010 (Tanzania National Bureau of Statis-tics 2011). Overall, it appears that Tanzania is experiencing arelative decoupling, or a decline in the ecological intensity perunit of economic output as opposed to an absolute decoupling.This is largely owing to the structure of the economy, wherebysmall increases in mineral extraction disproportionally increaseGDP, but result in only minor increases in DE. This demate-rialization is not necessarily a sign of sustainability given thatit is rapidly resulting in the depletion of nonrenewables cou-pled with environmental degradations from mining (Curtis andLissu 2008).

In previous literature, scholars have also used indicators toassess trends in the position a country holds in the interna-tional economy (Russi et al. 2009). In order to do so, theycalculate prices of imports and exports per unit of weight. It hasbeen noted that peripheral countries generally import capital-intensive, high-value added commodities and export low-valueadded primary commodities. In contrast, core countries gener-ally export capital-intensive, high-value commodities and im-port low-value added primary commodities (Russi et al. 2009).In Tanzania in 1997, this trend was true, given that the priceper tonne of exports was US$853, compared to an import priceof US$1,021. By 2011, however, this trend had reversed, giventhat price per tonne of exports was US$1,352, whereas im-ports per tonne were only US$1,170. However, in contrast,the EU-15 in 2000 imported 3.4 times more materials than itexported, with an average price of US$1,559 for an importedtonne in 2000 and approximately US$5,306 for an exportedtonne (Russi et al. 2009). The value of EU-15 exports pertonne in 2000 therefore was still significantly higher than thevalue of Tanzanian exports per tonne in both 1997 and 2011,reflecting the position of the industrialized region in the uppervalue-added segment of the world market.

Further, in the case of Tanzania, interpreting this indica-tor needs caution. It should be noted that the contribution ofprecious stones and metals as percentage of exports in mone-tary value has increased from approximately 3.6% in 1997 toaround 40% in 2011, a substantial increase. As discussed above,whereas higher manufactures have grown as a percentage of ex-ports, the growth has been slow, from approximately 1.4% to4.7% of total exports. Because precious stones and metals com-mand high prices per unit of material, it is not surprising thatthe value of Tanzanian exports should increase. Further, stan-dard trade data only measure the weight of traded commoditiesat point of entry and exit of country. For precious stones andmetals, this weight is nominal. Trade statistics do not capture

“hidden” flows—materials that are extracted or moved, but donot enter the economy. In the case of Tanzania, precious stonesand metals as percentage of exports weigh relatively very littleat the point of exit compared to the amount of mining overbur-den. Thus, it is possible that if indirect flows were accountedfor, Tanzanian exports would not show an increase in the pricecommanded per unit tonne. Therefore, it is doubtful whetherthe (relatively marginal) reversal, whereby Tanzanian exportscommand a somewhat higher price than its imports, reflects anysubstantial climb up the global value chain.

Conclusion

Despite decades of structural adjustment programs aimed ateconomic growth and development, Tanzania’s socioeconomicprofile continues to fit the classic description of a peripheraleconomy, whereby the majority of citizens are employed in ruralsubsistence farming and exports consist mainly of extractives,agricultural products, and low-level manufactures.

One would expect that with increased economic integra-tion, Tanzanian exports and imports would also increase inbiophysical terms. As shown above, this is what has occurred.The exports of metals and nonmetallic minerals were negligi-ble before the 2000s, but increased thereafter in absolute termswhen measured in physical tonnes. In monetary terms, metals,nonmetallic minerals, and basic derived products rose from 6%of total exports in 1997 to 66% of total exports in 2011, show-ing the growing dominance of metals and nonmetallic mineralsin terms relative to other exports. This increase is most likelyattributable to the Tanzanian 1998 mining code that openedthe Tanzanian mining sector to foreign investment on highlyfavorable terms to investors.

However, counterintuitively, Tanzania’s physical trade sur-plus across all material categories has increased throughout theyears of neoliberal structural adjustments and growing economicintegration. During the years of structural adjustment, devel-oping countries globally were encouraged to adopt export-ledgrowth strategies in accord with their “comparative advantage”(i.e., in the production and export of primary commodities andlow-value added goods). One might predict that developingcountries would, in general, show increasing PTB deficits. Be-cause of differences in geological endowments, this is not nec-essarily the case for specific countries.

The Tanzanian case study highlights a conceptual consider-ation for the study of EUE through the use of EW-MFAs. EUEis fundamentally concerned with issues of inequality and powerimbalances in a hierarchical world system. Tracking biophysi-cal flows, however, does not always capture the environmentaleffects of unequal dynamics of power in the international globaleconomy per se. Tanzania, as with most of Africa, has become anet importer of agricultural products. Studies have shown thatthis is a result of population growth, low agricultural produc-tivity, weak institutions, and poor infrastructure (Rakotoarisoaand Iafrate, 2011). The import of foodstuffs in Africa does notindicate a position of power in this case; it indicates a positionof vulnerability given issues of poverty and malnutrition.



To comprehensively assess the biophysical impact ofeconomic integration on developing countries, it remainsimportant for studies to utilize a combination of environmentalindicators, as more recent studies such as Moran and colleagues(2013) have done. But equally important is concrete study ofthe political economic dimension for particular case studies.For example, Moran and colleagues have noted that exportsfrom developing nations are more ecologically intensive thanthose from developed nations. That is, they contain moreembodied environmental impact per dollar sold than exportsfrom high-income countries. This refers to one central tenetof ecologically unequal exchange; the hypothesis that theresources of low-income countries are somehow “underpaid”or “undervalued.” To compound this, throughout Africa themajority of extractive industries are foreign owned and operateunder highly liberalized mining contracts (UNCTAD 2007).In such cases, export revenues are substantially higher than theactual revenue obtained by African states given that taxationlevels are typically very low (Sturmer 2010). On a broader leveltherefore, any comprehensive study of the impact of economicintegration, environment, and inequality necessitates concretestudy of the political economic dimension above and beyondjust resource flows to include flows of profit, study of who ownsperipheral resources and under what conditions, as well associal, environmental, and political impact.

Finally, the study has highlighted an important methodolog-ical issue for economies dominated by the export of low-weight,high-value precious stones and metals. For EUE, the results ofthe metals category are somewhat inclusive given the particularindicators used. As noted, the above study does not accountfor indirect flows embodied in trade, which are important indetermining both domestic resource depletion as well as envi-ronmental impact, and may greatly affect the PTB indicator.Finally, the lack of accounting for unused extraction, especiallyfor economies dominated by lightweight, high-value preciosi-ties, may greatly affect indicators that combine monetary andphysical trade data.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the Institute for Social EcologyVienna, UNI Klagenfurt, for allowing me to visit as a scholarand assisting my understanding of material flow accounting andanalysis. In particular, I would like to thank Nina Eisenmenger,Fridolin Krausmann, and Simron Jit Singh for their invalu-able help. I would also like to acknowledge the funding fromthe U.S. Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation 2013 Grant thatsupported the collection of data and fieldwork for this article.

Notes

1. The years 1976 and 1978 appear to be exceptions for exports andimports, respectively. The explanation for these exceptions likelylies in postindependent economic experiments with agriculture.For exports, there is a clear drop after 1976, largely in the material

category of biomass. This drop in export production likely arosefrom postindependence attempts to reduce the role of the exportsector in the national economy, given that it was associatedwith colonization and dependency. Simultaneously, from 1969to 1973, policies to increase domestic production pushed themechanization of farm work. This may explain the spike in fossilfuel imports for the year 1978. By 1980, however, owing to acomplex number of economics reasons, Tanzania was unable tocontinue financing such imports, which may account for the drop inimports thereafter. See, for example, a UN archive on Tanzania, at:http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu28ae/uu28ae0o.htm.

2. Japan’s PTB surplus downloaded from the Material Flows web-site: www.materialflows.net/data/datadownload/. Tanzania’s andJapan’s population in 2009 were 41,049,000 and 127,552,000,respectively. Population data obtained from the Index Mundiwebsite: www.indexmundi.com/tanzania/population.html andwww.indexmundi.com/japan/population.html.

3. Both Russi and colleagues’ and this article’s dematerialization indi-cators used GDP constant 2000.

References

Africa Progress Panel. 2013. Africa progress report 2013. http://africaprogresspanel.org/en/publications/africa-progress-report-2013/. Accessed 13 September 2013.

Andersson, J. O. and M. Lindroth. 2001. Ecologically unsustainabletrade. Ecological Economics 37(1): 113–122.

Bhagwati, J. 2003. The case for free trade. Scientific American 269(5):18–23.

Bunker, S. 1985. Underdeveloping the Amazon: Extraction, unequal ex-change, and the failure of the modern state. Chicago, IL, USA: Uni-versity of Illinois Press.

Campbell, B. K. and J. Loxley. 1989. Structural adjustment in Africa.New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Carmody, P. R. 2011. The new scramble for Africa. Cambridge, UK:Polity.

Crouch, S. C. 1987. Western responses to Tanzanian socialism, 1967–83.Aldershot, UK: Avebury.

Curtis, M. and T. Lissu. 2008. A golden opportunity? How Tanzania isfailing to benefit from gold mining. Dodoma, Tanzania: ChristianCouncil of Tanzania (CCT).

Eurostat. 2001. Economy-wide material flow accounts and derived indica-tors: A methodological guide. Luxembourg: Office for Official Pub-lication of the European Communities.

Eurostat. 2009. Economy-wide material flow accounts: Compilationguidelines for reporting to the 2009 Eurostat questionnaire. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/ceea/archive/Framework/Eurostat%20MFA%20compilation%20guide_2009.pdf. Access-ed 10 October 2012.

Eurostat. 2012. Economy-wide material flow accounts: Compilation guide2012. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/environmental_accounts/documents/Economy-wide%20material%20flow%20accounts%20compilation%20guide%20%20-.pdf.Accessed 15 October 2012.

Fischer-Kowalski, M. and H. Weisz. 1999. Society as hybrid betweenmaterial and symbolic realms: Toward a theoretical framework ofsociety-nature interaction. Advances in Human Ecology 8: 215–251.



Frame, M. 2014. Foreign investment in African resources: The eco-logical aspect of imperialism and unequal exchange. Ph.D.dissertation, Korbel School of International Studies, Universityof Denver, Denver, CO, USA.

Giljum, S. 2004. Trade, material glows, and economic development inthe South. Journal of Industrial Ecology 8(1–2): 241–261.

Giljum, S. and N. Eisenmenger. 2004. North-South trade and thedistribution of environmental goods and burdens: A biophysicalperspective. Journal of Environment and Development 13(1): 73–100.

Hornborg, A. 2001. The power of the machine: Global inequalities ofeconomy, technology, and environment. Walnut Creek, CA, USA:AltaMira.

Hornborg, A. 2011. Global ecology and unequal exchange: fetishism in azero-sum world. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

IFAD Tanzania (International Fund for Agricultural Develop-ment Tanzania). Rural poverty portal. http://operations.ifad.org/web/ifad/operations/country/home/tags/tanzania. Accessed 21September 2013.

Index Mundi Website. 2013. Tanzania. www.indexmundi.com/tanzania/. Accessed 12 March 2013.

Jorgenson, A. and B. Clark. 2009. Ecologically unequal exchange incomparative perspective: A brief introduction. International Jour-nal of Comparative Sociology 50(3–4): 211–214.

Long, A. 2014. Transactional upstream developments—Africa: Tan-zania’s natural gas policy. www.kslaw.com/library/newsletters/EnergyNewsletter/2014/February/article4.html. Accessed 25 July2014.

Manrique, P., J. Brun, A. Gonzalez-Martinez, and J. Martinez-Alier.2013. The biophysical performance of Argentina: 1970–2009.Journal of Industrial Ecology 17(4): 590–604.

Mkandawire, T. 2005. Maladjusted African economies and globaliza-tion. Africa Development XXX(1–2): 1–33.

Moran, D., M. Lenzen, K. Kanemoto, and A. Geschke. 2013. Doesecologically unequal exchange occur? Ecological Economics 89:177–186.

Muradian, R. and J. Martinez-Alier. 2001. Trade and the environ-ment: From a Southern perspective. Ecological Economics 36: 281–297.

Muradian, R., M. O’Connor, and J. Martinez-Alier. 2002. Embodiedpollution in trade: Estimating the environmental load displace-ment of industrialized countries. Ecological Economics 41(1): 51–67.

Perez-Rincon, M. A. 2006. Colombian international trade from a phys-ical perspective: Towards an ecological Prebisch thesis. EcologicalEconomics 59(4): 519–529.

Rakotoarisoa, M. A. and M. Iafrate. 2011. Why has Africa become a netfood importer: Explaining Africa agricultural and food trade deficits.Rome: Trade and Markets Division, Food and Agriculture Orga-nization of the United Nations.

REPOA (Research on Poverty Alleviation). 2012. Poverty and humandevelopment report, 2011. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Research onPoverty Alleviation (REPOA).

Rice, J. 2009. The transnationalization of production and uneven en-vironmental degradation and change in the world economy. In-ternational Journal of Comparative Sociology 50(3–4): 215–236.

Roberts, J. T. and B. C. Parks. 2007. A climate of injustice: Globalinequality, North-South politics, and climate policy. Cambridge, MA,USA: MIT Press.

Russi, D., A. C. Gonzalez-Martinez, J. C. Silva-Macher, S. Giljum,J. Martı́nez-Alier, and M. C. Vallejo. 2008. Material flows

in Latin America. Journal of Industrial Ecology 12(5–6): 704–720.

Schandl, H. and N. Schulz. 2000. Using material flow accounting tooperationalize the concept of society’s metabolism: A preliminaryMFA for the United Kingdom for the period of 1937–1997. ISERWorking Paper Series 2000–03: 1–33.

Shandra, J. M., E. Shor, G. Maynard, and B. London. 2008. Debt,structural adjustment, and deforestation: A cross-national study.Journal of World-Systems Research XIV: 1–21.

Singh, S. J. and N. Eisenmenger. 2010. How unequal is internationaltrade? An ecological perspective using material flow accounting.Journal fur Entwicklungspolitik XXVI: 57–88.

Sturmer, M. 2010. Let the good times roll? Raising tax revenuesfrom the extractive sector in Sub-Saharan Africa during thecommodity price boom. German Development Institute, Dis-cussion paper 7. www.die-gdi.de/CMS-homepage/openwebcms3.nsf/%28ynDK_contentByKey%29/MSIN-88MFWX. Accessed 2December 2012.

Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics. 2011. National accounts ofmainland Tanzania 2000–2010. www.nbs.go.tz/nbs/takwimu/na/TzMainland_NA_2000-2010.pdf. Accessed 27 July2014.

Tanzania Natural Resource Forum. 2009. Developing commercial biofuelsthrough securing local livelihoods and land rights. Tanzania NaturalResource Forum (TNRF) | Improving Governance and Natu-ral Resource Management in Tanzania. www.tnrf.org/node/9587.Accessed 24 April 2013.

Tockman, J. 2001. The IMF funding deforestation: How Interna-tional Monetary Fund loans are responsible for global forest loss.www.eldis.org/go/home&id=27219&type=Document. Accessed27 March 2015.

UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development).2005. Economic development in Africa: Rethinking the role of foreigndirect investment. New York: United Nations Conference on Tradeand Development.

UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Devel-opment). 2007. World investment report 2007 transnationalcorporations, extractive industries and development. Geneva,Switzerland: United Nations Conference on Trade andDevelopment.

UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Devel-opment). 2012. Economic development in Africa report 2012:Structural transformation and sustainable development in Africa.New York: United Nations Conference on Trade andDevelopment.

United Republic of Tanzania. 2009. The Economic Survey2009. http://www.tanzaniaembassy.or.jp/ITEMS/THE%20ECONOMICSURVEY%202009.pdf. Accessed 4 May2013.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Program). 2011. Decoupling nat-ural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth.Paris: United Nations Environment Program.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Program). 2013. Recent trendsin material flows and resource productivity in Asia and the Pacific.www.unep.org/pdf/RecentTrendsAP%28FinalFeb2013%29.pdf.Accessed March 2013.

Vallejo, M. C. 2010. Biophysical structure of the Ecuadorian economy,foreign trade, and policy implication. Ecological Economics 70(2):159–169.

Wallerstein, I. (1979). The capitalist world-economy: Essays. New York:Cambridge University Press.



Wolter, D. n.d. Tanzania: Why a potential food exporter is still import-ing food. http://www.oecd.org/dev/41302291.pdf. Accessed 28 July2014.

World Bank. 2014a. World Bank GDP per capita data. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD. Accessed 2 May2014.

World Bank. 2014b. World Bank country data Tanzania. http://data.worldbank.org/country/tanzania. Accessed 5 May 2014.

About the Author

Mariko Lin Frame was assistant professor at the Ameri-can University of Phnom Penh, in Phnom Penh, Cambodiaat the time this article was written and is currently servingas an adjunct faculty member in the Environmental StudiesDepartment at Westminster College in Salt Lake City, Utah,USA.

Supporting Information

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher’s web site:

Supporting Information S1: This supporting information provides the data sources used as well as a discussion of datauncertainty for this study.


Documents

Economic Integration in Tanzania: A Biophysical Assessment