Is Senegal locked in an eternal cycle of debt?

Reading time: 20 minutes

Out of the trap of dependence for sovereign and human development

Since their independence in the 1960s, many African countries such as Senegal have never really won their economic autonomy.

The growing burden of external debt keeps them in a situation of chronic dependence on international donors.

In addition, the policies of structural adjustment dictated by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank impose imported economic models, often disconnected from local social realities.

This spiral of debt, presented as an economic stabilization solution, has instead exacerbated inequalities, weakened health, education and infrastructure systems, while hampering the legitimate aspirations of the population.

Yet another way is possible. Leaving this dependency is not a utopian dream, but a historical necessity and a political choice.

The aim is to reinvent a development model rooted in sovereignty, social justice and human investment.

Historical debt burden in French-speaking Africa

African public debt has not arisen from recent mismanagement. It has its roots in colonial and postcolonial history, marked by structural dependence on foreign powers.

On the eve of independence, young African States found themselves with fragile economic structures, oriented towards the export of raw materials, without a solid industrial base or financial autonomy. Quickly, they had to look outside to finance their development.

During the 1970s, in the context of the cold war and high commodity prices, international financial institutions, including the IMF and the World Bank, increased their lending to African countries.

These credits were often granted without conditions of economic or social viability. Senegal, like other countries in the region, has been caught up in this logic of rapid debt, both to finance the necessary infrastructure but also to compensate for the balance of payments deficits.

With the fall in commodity prices in the 1980s, the situation worsened. African countries, whose export earnings were falling, were no longer able to repay their debt.

At that time, creditors imposed a new condition: acceptance of structural adjustment plans (SAPs), which were supposed to clean up public finances in exchange for new financing.

Debt then became a lever of control, locking African countries in a logic of permanent dependence.

The peculiarity of French-speaking countries such as Senegal also lies in their membership of the CFA franc zone, a currency historically controlled from Paris. This means that, in addition to contracting foreign currency debts, these countries have no control over their own monetary policy, thus increasing their vulnerability.

Debt is therefore not simply a problem of numbers, but an expression of incomplete economic sovereignty.

Structural adjustment policies: remedies or poisons?

In the early 1980s, when African countries were unable to repay their debts, the IMF and the World Bank proposed « solutions » : structural adjustment plans (SAPs).

Presented as reforms aimed at restoring macroeconomic balance, these plans were quickly perceived as a fiscal straitjacket imposed on States. In reality, they have profoundly transformed African economies often to the detriment of people.

PAS was based on several pillars:

• drastic reduction in public spending,
• market liberalization,
• privatisation of public enterprises,
• removal of subsidies on basic necessities,
• and unconditional openness to international trade.

In theory, these measures should enable indebted countries to boost growth, control inflation and attract foreign investment. But on the ground, the effects were quite different.

In Senegal, as in many sub-Saharan African countries, these reforms have led to a reduction in budgets for health, education and infrastructure. Hospitals and schools have drained their staff and resources.

The state, forced to disengage, left entire sections of the economy in the hands of private interests, often foreign, which had no obligation to meet social objectives.

Privatisation of national enterprises has not been synonymous with modernisation or performance.

On the contrary, many structures have been liquidated or sold at low prices, without any real improvement in services for citizens.

Opening up to international markets, without protection for local sectors, has exposed African economies to fierce, often unequal competition. Senegalese farmers, for example, have seen their local products supplanted by imported food, often subsidized abroad.

Even more serious, the SAPs have reduced the flexibility of States in defining their public policies.

The IMF, which became de facto manager of national finances, imposed macroeconomic indicators to be strictly respected, without always taking into account social reality. This technocratic logic has put human priorities at the heart: the fight against poverty, access to water, education and health.

With hindsight, many studies and testimonies converge: structural adjustments have slowed or reversed the dynamics of development in Africa. Far from being a solution, they have exacerbated economic and social imbalances, deepened inequalities and undermined citizens' confidence in their institutions.

Social and economic consequences for people

Structural adjustment policies and technocratic debt management have had devastating effects on the living conditions of African people.

In Senegal, these reforms have resulted in a palpable decline in public services, a weakening of social cohesion and an increasing impoverishment of the middle and working classes.

The first sector affected was health. By reducing public spending, the State has sabbed into the budgets of hospitals, clinics and community health centres. Drug shortages, lack of qualified personnel and lack of equipment have transformed access to care into a privilege.

Progressive privatization of health has increased inequalities between those who can pay and others. The health system has become unable to cope with major health crises.

Education has not been spared. Fewer teachers, fewer classes, frozen or reduced wages have resulted in a decline in the quality of public education. The dropout rate has increased, particularly among girls and in rural areas. The university, formerly a social elevator, found itself overloaded, underfunded, undermined by repeated strikes.

Infrastructure also suffered : degraded roads, unstable electricity networks, lack of drinking water.

In a country where public investment is the main driver of the economy, this brutal withdrawal from the state has paralyzed local dynamics. Small producers, artisans and traders were the first victims of the collapse of public order.

At the economic level, debt service dependence has reduced investment capacity.

Each year, a considerable part of the national budget is spent on interest repayment, to the detriment of the productive sectors. This fiscal imbalance hinders innovation, prevents the creation of sustainable jobs and increases the precariousness of younger generations.

Faced with this situation, many Senegalese had no choice but to migrate, sometimes at the risk of their lives. The « brain drain », in particular, deprives the country of its living forces, trained but without prospects.

At the same time, there is a sense of frustration: the impression that economic policies do not meet the needs or aspirations of the people, but rather the injunctions of distant creditors.

Perhaps the most profound consequence is the breakdown of the social contract. When citizens no longer see the state as an actor capable of improving their lives, they lose confidence, disengage, or violently challenge. It is the bedrock of political instability, social revolts and populism.

Why does this vicious circle last?

Despite criticism, failure and citizen mobilization, the debt trap continues to close in African countries such as Senegal.

Several mechanisms explain the persistence of this situation, which seems to be regenerating endlessly, in each budget cycle.

First, there is the structural burden of repayment. Much of the debt incurred in past decades has not been used to create sustainable wealth. Repayment of this debt, including interest, has become a priority in public budgets.

This means that every year Senegal must devote a significant portion of its resources to repaying a debt that is often illegitimate, without being able to allocate those funds to social or economic investments. Worse still, States may have to go into debt again to repay the old debt. This is the very essence of the vicious circle.

To this is added a low economic diversification. The Senegalese economy, like that of many African countries, still depends largely on a few sectors: commodity exports, tourism, diaspora transfers.

This vulnerability to external shocks (price variations, geopolitical crises, climate change) limits the ability to generate stable revenues, making external debt even more tempting and dangerous.

Another crucial factor is the institutional and monetary straitjacket. Senegal, like other countries in the WAEMU area, uses the CFA franc, a currency stowed against the euro and managed largely by the Bank of France.

This prevents any autonomous monetary policy: no possibility of devaluing to support exports, nor of issuing money to finance a recovery plan. In this context, external debt becomes the only policy space to finance deficits.

The political weight of the IMF and international donors is also central. These institutions often condition their support for the implementation of specific policies, oriented towards short-term fiscal balance, sometimes at the expense of long-term growth or the well-being of the population.

Governments, caught up in the demands of creditors and their people, often lack the leverage to arbitrate freely.

Finally, the weak governance and control systems The lack of public debate on borrowing allows this system to continue. Until major economic decisions are subject to real democratic control, the debt cycle will remain difficult to break.

Breaking chains: towards real economic sovereignty

Breaking with the infernal cycle of debt does not mean denying any form of borrowing, but radically rethinking the modalities of financing development.

It is no longer just a matter of paying back less, but of regaining control: on economic choices, on public policies, on the currency itself. This implies strong political will, but also concrete solutions, within the reach of African States such as Senegal.

The first track consists of conduct a citizen audit of public debt. 

This approach, already experienced in countries such as Ecuador or Tunisia, makes it possible to distinguish the legitimate debt contracted in the interests of the people from that which is illegitimate, abusive or contracted in opacity.

The concept of illegitimate debt is central to this process. It refers to loans contracted without real benefit to the population, under opaque, abusive conditions or for the benefit of undemocratic regimes.

These debts, although legally valid, are morally and politically questionable. They have often financed unnecessary, overvalued projects, or served to enrich an elite, while leaving the burden on citizens to pay back.

To demand their annulment is not to deny one's responsibilities, but to refuse to make a people pay for the mistakes or abuses of an unjust system.

The aim is not to escape obligations, but to lay a moral and political foundation for any renegotiation. By identifying illegitimate debts, States may require their cancellation or rescheduling without being perceived as bankruptcy.

Secondly, it is imperative that review the monetary framework. The debate on the reform of the CFA franc is more than symbolic: it affects the ability of countries in the WAEMU area to pursue monetary policy for their development.

A national or regional but sovereign currency would better regulate inflation, support productive sectors, and reduce dependence on international financial markets. This reform cannot be done lightly, but it is a major strategic lever.

Another fundamental axis: diversifying economic partnerships. Africa is not condemned to depend on Western institutions.

South-South cooperation initiatives (with emerging countries such as Brazil, India, China, or other African states) can offer more flexible financing alternatives, often oriented towards infrastructure or skills transfer.

In addition, emerging African institutions such as the African Development Bank (ADB) or the African Solidarity Fund are also involved.

At the same time, Senegal must strengthening its tax mobilization. Better collection of taxes, by combating tax evasion and excessive exemptions for multinationals, would make it possible to finance public investment without systematically resorting to debt. This requires a more transparent, more efficient, but also fairer state in its redistribution.

Finally, the citizen participation must be placed at the heart of economic transformation.

The Senegalese people can no longer be reduced to a spectator of the decisions taken by a technocratic elite or dictated from outside. Spaces for democratic deliberation, citizen control of budgets, consultation mechanisms on major borrowing projects are essential to ensure inclusive development.

Building harmonious development for the benefit of the people

In order to break out of the IMF's debt trap and diktat on a sustainable basis, Senegal cannot be content with financial or monetary reforms. Above all, it must rethink its development model around human beings, social justice and sustainability.

Harmonious development is development that truly benefits the people, builds local capacities and meets basic needs.

It starts with massive investment in social infrastructure schools, hospitals, rural roads, social housing, access to water and energy.

These investments must be seen not as burdens, but as levers of growth and stability. A well-educated child, a well-careed sick person, a well-equipped farmer are the pillars of a strong economy.

The State must also Support the local economy. 

Too often, economic policies have favoured large multinational enterprises, to the detriment of local small and medium-sized enterprises. However, it is they who create most jobs.

China's example strongly illustrates the power of a strong local economic fabric.

This country, often perceived through the prism of its industrial giants, owes much of its economic success to its thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In all provinces, these SMEs are at the heart of innovation, local production and massive exports of manufactured goods.

They benefit from targeted public support, easier access to credit and an economic policy that enhances the « Made in China ».

Senegal, if it intelligently adapts this model, can also stimulate its local SMEs in craft, agri-food, transformation or digital to build a resilient economy, rooted in local realities but open to the world.

They must be given access to financing, public procurement and technical training. This also requires better exploitation of local know-how, craft products, family farming.

The strengthening the education system is a top priority. We need a school that trains in citizenship, critical thinking, but also useful, innovative jobs adapted to local realities. The university must become a centre of research and innovation, connected to the needs of the country and its resources.

Another key lever lies in the development of technical and vocational education, long marginalized in educational policies.

Too many young Senegalese people are oriented towards generalist sectors, hoping to get a job in government or large companies.

However, these structures no longer have the capacity to absorb the massive influx of graduates entering the labour market each year.

There is an urgent need to promote skilled vocational training in line with local needs (crafts, modernized agriculture, building trades, digital services or energy).

These training courses, if they are socially valued and well managed, will enable young people not only to find a job, but better still, to find a job. creating their own economic activitythus strengthening the national entrepreneurial dynamics.

The health systemOn the other hand, it must be rethought on the basis of solidarity. Access to care cannot be a privilege. There is a need to ensure a minimum level of health for all in each region with trained, well-paid staff and modern equipment. This requires public budgets, but also a long-term strategic vision.

One of the most revealing symptoms of health system dysfunction is its de facto privatization, silent but generalized.

In addition to underfunded and overcrowded public hospitals, private clinics flourish in urban centres, attracting a significant proportion of medical staff. Many doctors in the public spend a significant part of their time there, often at the expense of their hospital obligations. Some are even owners or shareholders, creating a worrying conflict of interest.

This situation feeds a two-speed system, where only those who can afford it can access quality care within a reasonable time.

For the most modest, there are only outstanding public structures, with obsolete equipment and endless queues. This rampant commodification of health challenges the very principle of equity and further weakens the link between the state and its citizens.

Finally, this development cannot succeed without active participation of citizens. Involve local communities in the planning, implementation and monitoring of public policies is to ensure that these policies meet real needs, not external injunctions.

Senegal's harmonious development will not come from outside. It will be the result of a collective surge, a firm political will, and a deep civic commitment.

Dare hope, build otherwise

Senegal, like so many other African countries, still bears the stigma of an economic history marked by dependency, debt and imposed reforms.

Yet, despite this heavy past, the paths of emancipation are open. The country's human, cultural and natural resources are immense. What is needed today is a paradigm shift: considering development not as a matter of accounting balances, but as a project of society at the service of all.

Breaking with the vicious circle of debt is not just a matter of numbers: is a question of dignity, sovereignty, and justice. It is about restoring the freedom to choose priorities, to build an economy rooted in the reality of the country, to build public policies that give hope to youth and security to the most vulnerable.

This requires political courage, institutional innovation, but also renewed faith in the ability of African peoples to write their own future. The debt trap is not inevitable. It's a challenge. And like all the challenges, it calls for a collective, lucid but resolutely optimistic response.

The Senegalese diaspora, present in Europe, North America, the Middle East and elsewhere, represents a considerable economic force. Every year, it transfers billions of CFA francs to the country, mainly to support families left behind.

But beyond this social assistance, many members of the diaspora express the desire for actively contribute to Senegal's economic developmentinvestment in agriculture, real estate, tourism, services and renewable energy.

Unfortunately, the lack of secure, transparent and attractive mechanisms hinders these initiatives. The State would benefit from setting up savings and investment tools specific to the diaspora, combining financial guarantees, tax incentives and administrative support.

Such a mechanism would not only mobilise a stable and patriotic resource, but also provide a means of facilitate return and reintegration into employment thousands of Senegalese who wish to return home in dignified and productive conditions.

By directing the savings of the diaspora towards productive investments, supporting local entrepreneurship, training young people able to create their own jobs, and strengthening national taxation, Senegal can gradually reducing its dependence on external financing. 

These endogenous levers would enable the state to financing its development from internal resources, more stable, more sovereign and better aligned with national priorities. The direct consequence would be increased debt control, less exposure to IMF conditionalities, and in the long run, the possibility of getting out of the vicious circle of debt to build a more resilient, equitable and autonomous economy.