Ethiopia’s decision to float the birr was one of the most consequential economic reforms in the country’s recent history. But it should not be misunderstood. The float was not, by itself, a development strategy. It was a correction of a price that had been administratively suppressed for too long.
For years, Ethiopia’s foreign-exchange regime tried to manage scarcity through allocation. The official exchange rate presented an image of stability, but the real economy told a different story: importers waited for letters of credit, manufacturers struggled to obtain inputs, hospitals faced delays in accessing imported medicine, and investors treated convertibility risk as part of doing business. The dollar was not only a currency; it became an administrative privilege.
That system was costly. An overvalued exchange rate made imports appear cheaper than they really were, weakened incentives for exporters, encouraged rent-seeking, and pushed economic activity into the parallel market. It also hid the real constraint facing Ethiopia’s growth model: the country was importing the inputs of transformation faster than it was producing the foreign exchange needed to pay for them.
The July 2024 reform therefore exposed a structural problem that had been accumulating for years. Ethiopia had not simply suffered from a shortage of dollars. It had suffered from a shortage of dollar-earning capacity.
The first results of the reform are not insignificant. Inflation has eased sharply from the extreme levels of earlier years. Foreign-exchange reserves have been rebuilt from dangerously low levels. The spread between the official and parallel exchange rates narrowed after liberalization. The balance of payments has improved, supported by stronger coffee and gold exports, private transfers, service receipts, and external financing. The IMF-supported program has also helped restore some confidence around the macroeconomic framework.
These gains should be acknowledged. Ethiopia is no longer operating under the same level of macroeconomic denial that defined the pre-float period. The exchange rate is more realistic. Monetary policy has become tighter. The government has stopped relying on direct central-bank advances to finance the budget. The domestic Treasury market is gradually becoming more market-based. These are important institutional shifts.
But stabilization is not transformation.
The risk now is that policymakers, creditors, and investors may mistake an improvement in macro indicators for a durable repair of Ethiopia’s external position. The country’s reserve buffer remains thin. Import demand remains high. External debt restructuring is not fully complete. Inflation risks have not disappeared. Credit growth remains strong. The export base is still narrow and vulnerable to commodity cycles. And the parallel market has not been eliminated; it has only been weakened.
This is why Ethiopia’s next task is more difficult than floating the birr. It must rebuild its external financing model.
The old model was based on a combination of public borrowing, donor financing, controlled foreign-exchange allocation, import compression, and periodic adjustment. That model could sustain investment for a time, but it could not produce external resilience. It created infrastructure, but not enough tradable-sector competitiveness. It expanded domestic demand, but not enough export supply. It supported growth, but growth remained heavily dependent on imported fuel, fertilizer, machinery, medicine, and industrial inputs.
A more sustainable model must begin from a simple principle: every major investment strategy should be tested against the balance of payments. Does it save foreign exchange? Does it earn foreign exchange? Does it raise productivity in sectors that can compete? Does it reduce future import dependence? If the answer is no, then the project may still have social or political value, but it should not be sold as a solution to the external constraint.
This is especially important for debt. Ethiopia’s debt problem was not only that it borrowed too much. It was that too much borrowing failed to generate the foreign-exchange earnings needed to service future obligations. External debt is easy to sign and hard to repay when the economy does not produce enough dollars. Future borrowing must therefore be more selective, more transparent, and more closely linked to export capacity, logistics productivity, energy reliability, agricultural transformation, and import substitution where it is economically efficient.
The same logic applies to foreign direct investment. Ethiopia does not simply need investment inflows; it needs the right kind of investment. Capital that enters for protected domestic rents may worsen import demand without strengthening the external account. Capital that builds export capability, improves logistics, supports agro-processing, expands digital services, develops tourism, or raises manufacturing competitiveness is different. It helps create the foreign-exchange base that makes macroeconomic stability sustainable.
The state must therefore shift from allocating scarce dollars to building institutions that help firms earn them. That means faster customs clearance, reliable power, predictable tax administration, competitive logistics, contract enforcement, credible access to foreign exchange, and fewer discretionary controls. It also means treating exporters not as rent-seekers to be controlled, but as macroeconomic assets to be supported and disciplined through performance.
Gold and coffee have recently helped Ethiopia’s external accounts. But relying too much on a few commodities is risky. Gold exports can rise quickly, but they are exposed to price cycles, smuggling incentives, and policy distortions. Coffee remains a strategic asset, but Ethiopia captures too little value from branding, processing, traceability, and market positioning. The objective should not only be to export more raw products, but to increase the domestic value retained from each unit exported.
Services should also become central to the external strategy. Ethiopia often thinks of foreign exchange in terms of physical goods, but the future can also come from aviation, tourism, logistics, professional services, digital work, education, health services, and creative industries. These sectors require a different policy imagination: payment-system openness, reliable internet, international card access, skills, urban safety, reputational credibility, and rules that allow service exporters to retain and use their earnings.
Remittances are another underused pillar. Ethiopians abroad will not channel more money through the formal system simply because they are asked to be patriotic. They will do so when the formal system offers fair value, speed, convenience, and confidence. The lesson is straightforward: incentives beat appeals. A credible exchange-rate regime, competitive transfer costs, and reliable banking services will do more to attract remittances than moral pressure.
But external financing reform also has a distributional dimension. Devaluation improves incentives for exporters, but it also raises the domestic cost of imports. That hurts households through fuel, transport, medicine, fertilizer, and food prices. A reform that ignores this social cost can lose legitimacy even when it is technically correct. Ethiopia therefore needs targeted protection for vulnerable households, especially where imported inflation affects food, transport, and basic services.
This is where the lesson of development economics becomes unavoidable: markets require institutions to produce socially useful outcomes. A flexible exchange rate can reveal scarcity, but it cannot by itself build competitiveness. A tighter monetary policy can reduce inflation, but it cannot create exports. Debt restructuring can create breathing room, but it cannot guarantee future discipline. Liberalization can remove distortions, but it cannot replace industrial policy, social protection, or state capacity.
Ethiopia’s post-float challenge is therefore not simply to “let the market work.” It is to build a market in which productive firms can work. That requires coordination between the central bank, finance ministry, trade authorities, industrial-policy institutions, banks, exporters, logistics providers, regional governments, and private investors. External balance is not achieved inside the central bank alone. It is produced in farms, factories, ports, software firms, hotels, cargo terminals, and credible public institutions.
The birr float has changed the terms of Ethiopia’s economic debate. The country can no longer pretend that cheap official dollars are a substitute for competitiveness. Nor can it return to a system where scarcity is rationed through administrative discretion. The real question now is whether Ethiopia can convert nominal adjustment into structural adjustment.
That will require a new external financing model built on five pillars: export diversification, formal remittance growth, disciplined concessional borrowing, productivity-enhancing investment, and reserve accumulation. Without these, the country may stabilize temporarily, only to face another foreign-exchange crisis when the next shock arrives.
Ethiopia has gained breathing space. But breathing space is not recovery. The float made the external constraint visible. The next phase must make it solvable.
—-
Samson Berhane is an economics graduate with expertise in business and economic reporting and communications. He can be reached at [email protected]. The views expressed in this article are his own and do not represent the opinions of the institutions he is affiliated with nor that of the magazine.
