尊敬的用戶您好，這是來自FT中文網的溫馨提示：如您對更多FT中文網的內容感興趣，請在蘋果應用商店或谷歌應用市場搜尋「FT中文網」，下載FT中文網的官方應用。
Africa’s debt problems were high on the agenda at last week’s IMF-World Bank meetings. Around 20 low-income African nations are either bankrupt or at high risk of debt distress. And across the continent, high interest rates, soaring inflation and sluggish economies have made post-pandemic debt piles harder to shrink.
在上週舉行的國際貨幣基金組織和世界銀行會議上，非洲的債務問題是議程上的重要議題。約有20個低收入非洲國家要麼破產，要麼面臨債務危機。而在整個非洲大陸，高利率、通膨飆升和經濟疲軟使得疫後的債務堆積更難縮減。
Regional policymakers reckon an “Africa premium” is also to blame. This, they say, is the additional cost nations face when raising finance, simply for being African. They argue it stems from bias and inaccuracy in the credit scores given by the “Big Three” American credit rating agencies, S&P Global, Moody’s and Fitch — which account for 95 per cent of the global ratings market.
地區政策制定者認爲「非洲溢價」也難辭其咎。他們說，這是各國在籌資時面臨的額外成本，僅僅因爲它們是非洲國家。他們稱這源於「三大」美國信用評級機構——標普全球、穆迪和惠譽——給出的信用評分中存在的偏見和不準確。這三家機構佔到全球評級市場的95%。
In recent years, African finance ministers have increasingly voiced concerns over their credit ratings, and have called for the creation of the continent’s own scoring institution. Just this week, regional experts are meeting in Nairobi to discuss how to improve credit assessments across the continent. The African Union expects an African Credit Rating Agency (AfCRA) — which has been in the works since 2022 — to launch next year.
近年來，非洲各國的財政部長越來越多地表達了對其信用評級的擔憂，並呼籲成立非洲大陸自己的評分機構。就在本週，地區專家將在內羅畢舉行會議，討論如何改善整個非洲大陸的信用評估。非洲聯盟預計，自2022年開始籌建的非洲信用評級機構(AfCRA)將於明年推出。
African nations do tend to have a higher cost of capital relative to peers with similar economic profiles. But it is hard to ascertain how much of this premium might reflect misguided perceptions, or realities around idiosyncratic political risks and structural economic challenges. Rating agencies also argue that they apply the same, rigorous debt sustainability framework to all sovereigns, whether in Africa or not.
與經濟狀況類似的國家相比，非洲國家獲取資本的成本確實較高。但很難確定這種溢價在多大程度上反映了被誤導的看法，還是反映了圍繞獨特政治風險和結構性經濟挑戰的現實。評級機構還辯稱，它們對所有主權國家，無論是非洲國家還是其他國家，都採用同樣的、嚴格的債務可持續性框架。
That does not mean the complaints of Africa’s policymakers are baseless. Credit ratings are not an exact science, and the Big Three have quickly reversed credit opinions in the past. Rating agencies combine economic analysis — using metrics such as economic growth, debt ratios, and foreign reserves — with a qualitative assessment of policies, institutions, and political and geopolitical dynamics. All of these may have an impact on creditworthiness. But the quality and reliability of Africa’s national statistics is poor. The Big Three agencies also have limited on-the-ground presence in the continent, which raises doubt over their ability to conduct holistic assessments.
這並不意味著非洲決策者的抱怨毫無根據。信用評級並不是一門精確的科學，三大評級機構過去也曾迅速推翻自己的信用評級。評級機構將經濟分析——使用經濟成長、債務比率和外匯儲備等指標——與對政策、制度以及政治和地緣政治動態的定性評估相結合。所有這些都可能對信用價值產生影響。但非洲國家統計數據的質量和可靠性很差。三大評級機構在非洲大陸的實地存在也有限，這讓人懷疑它們是否有能力進行全面評估。
This means that even if there is no systemic bias against African nations, there could still be flaws in their rating methodologies. Last year, the UN Development Programme estimated that African nations could save up to $75bn in excess interest payments and forgone lending if the agencies based scores on a more “objective” credit model.
這意味著，即使不存在針對非洲國家的系統性偏見，他們的評級方法仍可能存在缺陷。去年，據聯合國開發計劃署估計，如果評級機構根據更「客觀」的信用模型進行評分，非洲國家可以節省高達750億美元的超額利息支出和放棄貸款。
An Africa-led credit rating agency is no panacea, however. First, poor governance, a lack of market depth, and complications in restructuring loans are the main culprits for the continent’s indebtedness. The Big Three can be easy scapegoats. Second, a nation’s ability to repay its debts depends on more than economic models. That means judgments on issues like political dynamics are always necessary. AfCRA may lack credibility with investors if it is seen as too favourable to local debtors. Building trust will be crucial, given that most capital comes from outside the continent.
然而，一家由非洲主導的信用評級機構並非靈丹妙藥。首先，治理不善、市場深度不足以及債務重組的複雜性是非洲大陸負債問題的主要原因。三大評級機構很容易成爲替罪羊。其次，一個國家償還債務的能力不僅僅取決於經濟模式。這意味著對政治動態等問題的判斷總是必要的。如果AfCRA被視爲過於偏袒當地債務人，那麼它可能會在投資者中失去信譽。鑑於大部分資本來自非洲大陸以外，建立信任將至關重要。
There could be merit in AfCRA if it was refocused to raise regional data quality and share analysis with the established agencies. The Big Three would also be wise to raise their presence in the fast-growing, young continent which is garnering more investor interest. Africa faces an enormous investment gap to tackle climate change and boost productivity, which means fair and accurate financing costs are essential.
如果AfCRA能夠調整工作重點，提高地區數據質量並與老牌機構共享分析結果，那麼AfCRA將大有可爲。三大評級機構還應該加強在非洲這個快速成長的年輕大陸的存在，因爲非洲正在吸引更多投資者的興趣。非洲在應對氣候變化和提高生產力方面面臨巨大的投資缺口，這意味著公平準確的融資成本至關重要。
Even if the assessment of Africa’s credit ratings can become more granular, the biggest drivers of its high borrowing costs will still remain. Regional finance ministers should not be distracted from important, but difficult, public finance reforms. These include improving tax collection and phasing out wasteful subsidies. Multilateral debt restructuring efforts must also continue. Indeed, it will take a lot more than Africa’s own credit rating agency to turn the continent’s cash flow problems around.
即使對非洲信用等級的評估可以變得更加精細，造成非洲借貸成本高昂的最大因素仍然存在。非洲各國財長不應分散對重要但困難的公共財政改革的注意力。這些改革包括改善稅收稽徵和逐步取消浪費性補貼。多邊債務重組努力也必須繼續。事實上，要扭轉非洲大陸的現金流問題，需要的不僅僅是一個非洲自己的信用評級機構。