Paradigms of accelerated industrialization: From Rosenstein-Rodan's Big Push theory to Journot's systemic model of the United States of Sub-Saharan Africa (USSA)

The issue of economic development in low-income countries has long been dominated by a debate between advocates of organic, gradual growth and those who advocate structural change through massive investment. At the heart of the latter school of thought lies the "Big Push" theory, formulated by Paul Rosenstein-Rodan in 1943. Initially designed to respond to the challenges facing Eastern and Southeastern Europe after World War II, this theory posits that developing economies are trapped in a low-level equilibrium from which they can only escape through coordinated and simultaneous investment in several key sectors.

More than seventy years later, this paradigm finds new and pragmatic resonance in the United States of Sub-Saharan Africa (USSA) project. By proposing a dedicated financial architecture and a systemic industrialization strategy, this project seeks to break with six decades of fragmented, "siloed" international aid and establish a dynamic of sovereign growth based not on the premature creation of a single market, but on the robustness of a local productive fabric capable of attracting global capital and technology. 

The foundations of Paul Rosenstein-Rodan's Big Push theory

The birth of development economics as an academic discipline is intrinsically linked to the work of Paul Rosenstein-Rodan. His seminal 1943 article, entitled "Problems of Industrialization of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe," marked a break with classical theory by introducing the concept of demand complementarities and pecuniary externalities. 

The ontology of underdevelopment as an equilibrium trap

For Rosenstein-Rodan, underdevelopment is not simply a lack of capital, but a failure of coordination at the macroeconomic level. In an agrarian or under-industrialized economy, individual investment decisions are limited by the size of the domestic market. An isolated company will hesitate to industrialize because it cannot anticipate whether its products will find buyers, as the incomes of other agents are too low. This situation creates a "low-level equilibrium trap" where stagnation is self-perpetuating. 

To move to a higher equilibrium, industrialization requires overcoming three major types of indivisibilities:

The indivisibility of the production function (fixed social capital): The construction of basic infrastructure (roads, electricity, ports) requires a colossal initial investment that cannot be fragmented. This infrastructure is essential for reducing the production costs of all other industries.  

The indivisibility of demand (Complementarity): The industrialization of a single sector is doomed to failure due to a lack of outlets. Conversely, if a multitude of consumer goods industries are launched simultaneously, the workers in each factory become customers of the others, creating a solvent global market through the multiplier effect of wages. 

The indivisibility of savings supply: An industrialization program requires a minimum amount of capital that exceeds the spontaneous savings capacity of poor populations. This justifies external or state intervention to provide the initial impetus.  

Although Rosenstein-Rodan's insights were widely adopted by the Bretton Woods institutions in the 1950s, they were criticized for their lack of mathematical rigor until their reformulation in 1989 by Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny. These authors used game theory to demonstrate how the existence of high fixed costs in modern technologies justifies coordinated intervention. In their model, industrialization is profitable for a firm if and only if a sufficient proportion of the economy also industrializes, thereby increasing national income and aggregate demand. 

The Big Push theory also emphasizes the crucial role of "technological externalities" and "learning by doing." Investment in human capital and advanced technologies generates social benefits that far exceed private profits, thus justifying public subsidies or strategic development funds to trigger economic takeoff. 

Criticism of traditional international aid: 60 years of "silo" policies

The United States of Sub-Saharan Africa (USSA) project stems from a harsh reality: the failure of Official Development Assistance (ODA) as it has been practiced for the past 60 years. Approximately $2 trillion has been poured into sub-Saharan Africa by international institutions without achieving any structural transformation of the economies. 

Fragmentation and lack of a systemic vision

ODA is criticized for its "silo" approach. This method consists of financing disparate projects, often dictated by the ideological or budgetary priorities of donors (health, education, environment) with no direct link to the productive structure. While these interventions have an undeniable humanitarian impact, they do not lay the foundations for industrialization. The lack of coordination between the different "silos" prevents the emergence of the complementarities of demand identified by Rosenstein-Rodan. 

The current model is described as a "non-repayable" distribution of Western taxpayers' money, which keeps countries in structural dependence rather than promoting the emergence of local businesses capable of generating their own tax revenue. 

Macroeconomic consequences of the failure of aid

The absence of an industrial "Big Push" in sub-Saharan Africa has led to several major dead ends: The hypertrophy of the informal sector: In the absence of large and medium-sized structured enterprises, the majority of the working population survives on very low-productivity activities, limiting the tax base of states. The failure of public services: Without an industrial base from which to tax added value, governments are unable to finance education, health, and security independently, remaining perpetually dependent on foreign aid. The demographic and migration crisis: With 600 million new workers expected in the next 25 years, the lack of prospects for stable salaried employment is fueling mass exodus and security instability. 

The United States of Sub-Saharan Africa (USSA) project: A modern Big Push

Faced with the exhaustion of international aid models, the USSA project, founded by Francis Journot, proposes an operational reinterpretation of the Big Push theory. This project is intended to be pragmatic, systemic, and holistic, aiming to industrialize the subcontinent in less than twenty years. 

A financial architecture for independence

At the heart of the USSA project is the creation of a dedicated investment fund designed to break with the logic of subsidies. The goal is to build a rigorous financial architecture capable of attracting international private and public capital by offering prospects for profitability based on industrial growth. This fund does not simply lend money; it serves as a pivot to orchestrate the simultaneous installation of complete productive ecosystems. 

The strategy is based on the idea that in order to attract the "heavyweights of the global economy," they must be offered reception structures (business parks, new towns, local subcontracting networks) that reduce risks and transaction costs. 

Priority to production in the single market

Unlike traditional initiatives such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), the EUAS project does not make the creation of a single market an immediate priority. The underlying analysis is that trade integration is ineffective if participating countries do not have manufactured goods to trade or if their economies are too homogeneous (raw material exports). 

Instead, the USSA proposes to create a "homogeneous economic community" based on productive capacity. The idea is to promote intersectoral equalization and local value chains before fully liberalizing trade. This approach respects the sovereignty of states, as the project does not aim to create a supranational authority, but rather operational technical and financial cooperation. 

Step-by-step industrialization and technology transfer

The project rejects the temptation of a direct "technological leap" to Industry 4.0, which it considers unequal. It advocates a gradual ramp-up to include the entire working population, while promoting massive transfers of know-how from partner companies.

The levers for attracting technologies include:

Competitiveness through proximity: Promoting sub-Saharan Africa as an alternative to China for European companies seeking to reduce their logistics costs and geopolitical dependence. Workforce training: Using industrial investment as a vehicle for higher technical education, thereby creating the positive externalities identified by Rosenstein-Rodan.

Geopolitical and economic relevance of the USSA model

The relevance of the USSA project can be assessed in light of contemporary challenges that extend beyond the borders of the African continent. The African "Big Push" is presented as a systemic solution to global crises.

Regional stability and mutual security

The link between extreme poverty and conflict is at the heart of the EUAS's thinking. The project argues that industrialization and prosperity are the only sustainable bulwarks against ethnic and religious tensions. By creating positive economic interdependence among participating states, the project aims to stabilize the region. In addition, the EUAS proposes pooling security forces to protect infrastructure and industrial areas, thereby creating a climate of confidence for international investors. 

Migration issues and the costs of inaction

For Europe and France, support for such a project is based on economic as well as humanitarian rationality. Francis Journot points out that the cost of a migrant's failed integration in Europe can amount to more than €1.5 million over a lifetime, whereas a fractional investment in local industrialization would create sustainable jobs locally. The EUAS project thus transforms the migration issue into a lever for productive investment south of the Sahara. 

Broadening the tax base and sovereignty

The ultimate goal of the USSA version of the Big Push is to give states true fiscal sovereignty. By transforming informal jobs into salaried jobs, the project enables: An automatic increase in state revenues through income and consumption taxes. The financing of public services (health, education) without resorting to external debt or international aid.  Reduced dependence on foreign powers such as China by diversifying industrial partnerships and strengthening local capacities. 

Conclusion: A synthesis of classical theory and African pragmatism

Paul Rosenstein-Rodan's Big Push theory, although conceived for another era, provides the intellectual framework needed to understand why fragmented development policies have failed in sub-Saharan Africa. The indivisibility of infrastructure, demand, and capital requires a coordinated qualitative leap that the market alone cannot produce. 

The United States of Sub-Saharan Africa (EUAS/USSA) project provides the operational dimension that was missing from 20th-century development theories. By replacing "silo" aid with a systemic investment fund, prioritizing production over pure trade, and integrating security and technology transfer issues, this project offers a path to emergence that respects the sovereignty of African nations. 

In a context of unprecedented demographic pressure, the choice is no longer between slow growth and a Big Push, but between massive industrialization and permanent instability. The USSA  model, based on the principles of complementarity and minimum critical effort, offers a concrete prospect for making sub-Saharan Africa a hub of global prosperity, thus breaking definitively with the cycle of dependence. (External analysis)