A measure of debate welled up after the Information and Communication Technology Commission (ICTC) pledged to uplift electronics industries established by investors in Tanzania, which was quickly interpreted as an impending ban on imported smartphones in particular. No such thing was directly emphasised by the ICTC director, even as he made the pledge over the weekend when visiting Tanztech, an electronics equipment assembling plant at Themi ward in Arusha city. There was deliberate insinuation that banning imported items would be suitable, it appeared to many.

There was a spin in what the commission director stated, in explaining the commission’s wish to ensure the firms’ growth to meet the rising demand for locally manufactured electronic products, instead of simply the rising demand for such products. Yet the government as it is the case in any other country, has the right and some would say the duty to privilege local producers over imported goods. Free trade agreements relate to reciprocal gains or as a means of development assistance, which admittedly is now declining, and it isn’t surprising to hear sheer protectionist sirens here too.

Yet there is still a problem of policy design as to how much tariff advantage is relevant, as banning goods from various countries risks counteracting action, for instance in relation to niche markets where zero or low tariffs are permitted to countries on a selective basis. At times government officials take interests of foreign countries for granted while pushing local interests too far, as firms invest in a particular sector on the basis of perceived ability to compete, not on a promise of total protection. If anything, the idea of a complete ban, whether suggested or not, would imply excessive affinity between regulators and those assembling the products, impairing the rule of law.

 There were a number of disquieting areas in the director’s remarks on the rising demand for smart electronic devices is high, citing the possibility of building our own brands for instance. As it is often the case, this sort of suggestion was rapidly piled up with the need to create business opportunities and empower entrepreneurs, whereas it is distinctive view of what could happen. The idea of own brand implies microchip manufacturing for instance, or otherwise seek visible association, via trademark access, for specific electronic systems driving that brand, as in the old bold inscription on most computers being sold in the local market that used to read ‘Intel Inside.’

That Tanzania has 23m smartphone users, on the basis of the latest quarterly report of the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA), is mouth-watering to some entrepreneurs and may indeed strike the imagination of regulators that this a market that is there for local manufacturers.  This idea isn’t bad but without viable competition the public will start to be short-changed in a dramatic way, and at that time it will be too late to do anything as the policy discussion would have folded up years earlier. Then regulators will check who says bad things about local industries on social media, promising that ICT equipment produced locally will improve overtime, with research.

There are areas where it is indeed possible for the commission to work closely with investors to ensure they receive the necessary government support on time, creating an attractive environment for investment in the ICT sector. This would basically have to do with school electronic equipment like tablets of various sorts, as their precise content and capacities are matters of less competition, If indeed the tablets can be assembled locally and obtained for less than the 100 dollars we often hear is what one such imported tablet can cost, why not make them here? Even then, assured technology or microchip links with an established producer is advisable for quality issues, not issuing blank cheques to this or that local assembling company, as that would only boost smuggling activity, etc.