Here is the title of an article that sets the readers on the
wrong track before they even get to read the article: “Entrepreneurship Grows
in Egypt 's
Flailing Economy.” What’s wrong with this are two things. First, even if some
people will interpret the first two words to mean that entrepreneurship has
always existed in Egypt, and that it is now growing, most people will think
that it was never in Egypt, and it is now beginning to grow. This is false, and
what comes later in the article makes the falsehood even worse.
Second, Egypt 's
economy is not now flailing, and has not been flailing during the three years
of the Revolution. If it were, then only a dozen or so economies that register
a rate of growth higher than 2.5 percent would be considered healthy. Many will
have to be considered flailing, because they only register positive 1 or 2
percent growth like Egypt .
And the rest of the world economies will have to be considered worse than
flailing because they register negative growth.
However, that is not how the health of an economy is
normally defined. Furthermore, the term does not apply to Egypt by any stretch of the imagination because
no structural damage was done to the country's economy during the double whammy
of a revolution and a European severe slowdown that cut down on the import of
goods from Egypt ,
and the supply to that country with tourists. What really happened, therefore,
was that the domestic economy remained intact while the part that dealt with
the world was curtailed somewhat.
Thus, while the banking system remained flush with cash in
the local currency, and business activity in the country remained as brisk as
ever, it was drained of foreign reserves, some of which was smuggled out of the
country illegally. This caused worries to develop in some quarters, but nothing
of the magnitude seen in the European peripherals which, in some cases, had
little cash left in the banking system, and owed more money to foreigners than
their GDP was worth.
Those European countries needed bailouts in the true sense
of the word because what was done to stabilize them represented a default by
another name. The amounts they owed reached the hundreds of billions of dollars
whereas Egypt
needed no more than a “bridge loan” of less than ten billion dollars to get
over the hump. This is what the IMF is there for, but Egypt did not
like the conditions that would be attached to taking a loan from that
institution. It kept postponing acceptance of the offer, then secured loans
from friends. And this, in no way, can be called a bailout. In fact, America borrows
as much every few days to plug its fiscal gap and remain “afloat.”
We now get back to the article. It was written by Maggie
Hyde of Associated Press and circulated on March 7, 2014. It has little to do
with the Egyptian economy per se, which is a good thing because the little that
is said is already grossly in error as we shall see in a moment. But the
article is about a television show that involves the U.S. Agency for
International Development which partially funds an initiative mounted by a
Bamyan Media whose aim is to encourage entrepreneurship in countries where some
people erroneously believe that the spirit does not exist or is in short
supply.
In any case, Bamyan Media makes television shows in Egypt and
elsewhere in the world that depict young entrepreneurs who started a project
and became successful. The Executive Producer is Anna Elliot, an American who
tagged onto a program that is run by Egypt 's Social Fund for
Development. This program has been around for several years, handing out seed
money to youngsters that come up with a good idea for a project. Its managing
Director is Ghada Fathi Waly, a distinguished woman who was later appointed to
head a government ministry. And it is these two women, Elliot and Waly that
Maggie Hyde of Associate Press consulted to write the article, though she
interviewed other people as well.
Although Hyde admits that Egypt 's economy is now getting back
to “levels seen before the 2011 uprising,” she makes the classic mistake of
throwing in the air a grave error. She quotes Anna Elliot who does not speak
Arabic as saying: “There is not even a word for entrepreneurship in Arabic.”
Well, the fact is that the word is a French word because there is not an
English equivalent for it, whereas the Arabic language has at least four words
to express its meaning.
Brace yourself for a mini lesson in linguistics: “entre”
means between in French; “prendre” means to take and “preneur” means the one
who takes. Thus, entrepreneur means the one who takes matters in his hands. Now
to see what the Arabs have, I must first explain something that is a little
more difficult to do. There is a sound in the Arabic alphabet that exists
nowhere else as far as I know. It originates deep at the back of the throat and
is sometimes represented by the letter “e” in English such as al-Qaeda. The
problem is that it does not represent the right sound which also comes at the
start of the word “arab” where no “e” is placed at the start. And so, because
the sound is represented by a letter of the Arabic alphabet that looks like the
Western number 3, it is now customary to use that character when expressing the
Arabic word. Thus, you have al-Qa3da and 3arab.
The reason why I went through all that trouble is because
there is the Arabic word “3amal” which, depending on its use, can mean “the
works” as in business affairs; or can mean “making” as in making things. There
is another peculiarity of the Arabic language I am not going to fully explain
here; it is that the plural for 3amal is a3mal.
Thus, what you have in Arabic are two terms using that word
“a3mal” to mean entrepreneur. They are “mubasher a3mal” which can be translated
literally into “messenger of works”; and you have “ra-ed a3mal” which can be
translated into leader of works. There are two other words that mean
entrepreneur in Arabic. They are muqawel which means contractor, and moltazem
which means the one who shoulders obligations. Thus, depending on what kind of
entrepreneur you're talking about, you can use one of the first two which are
generic, or you can use one of the last two which are specific.
Something that Waly said also needs an explanation. She
estimates “that at least two-thirds of the country's economy rides on the
informal business.” Well, two-thirds means 67 percent. When you add to this the
40 percent that is said to be controlled by the military, you already reach 107
percent which is absurd. So the question is this: What is going on? Well, when
you think of business in Egypt ,
think of those that pay taxes and those that don't. The big corporations; be
they local or foreign pay taxes and constitute perhaps one third of the
economy. Another 10 percent may be controlled by the military. The rest do not
pay taxes, but some are registered and above ground while the others are not
registered, and operate as part of the underground economy. They may each
represent 25 to 30 percent of the economy.