Support NeoGAF

[pollo]

as told by jeffrey sachs many times over.
Says in his new book all we need is 15 cents to the 100 dollars to eradicate poverty the worldover by 2025. I believe him, my professor believes him, and I believe in my professor.

Its a well-known fact the IMF and Worldbank are pawns of the west - tools used for the accretion of getting the wealthy wealthier and as an unfortunate result the poor poorer. Now Im not poor. Mommy and daddy make upper-middle class income and pay for my 40k education - but I hate to break it to them my major is not going to make their money back. Tears are shed. Ive moved on.

So for you budding developmentalists in the room - show thyselves. Post your questions/comments/readings that youd like to share. I for one adhere to the views shared on Real Economic Outlook edited by Ann Pettifor, which, as their site describes it is "a collaborative venture involving radical economists from around the world. RWEO 2003 contributors include Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, renowned ecological economist Herman Daly, as well as a host of distinguished southern economists, including Jayati Ghosh, Gita Sen, Franklin Serrano, Jomo KS and Zo Randriamaro." Good textbook which I read last sem for my development of third world countries class. Its quite somethin.

Never heard of them but then again I dont know that many economists to begin with - just the bigwigs (Friedman, Malthus, Keynes, Rostow...etc...etc)

 

[way more]

My Development of third world class was taught by a clumsy but endearing grad student and we really didn't talk much about solutions. The development paths and historical problems I'm pretty well schooled in but I don't recall anyone offering many solutions other then pointing out current trends.

I think the solution is better geared toward preventing countries from following disastrous paths of over-development or becoming 'periphery' nations to the west. These radical theories will remain just that. And your title point is just a correlation.

 

[Nerevar]

as told by jeffrey sachs many times over.
Says in his new book all we need is 15 cents to the 100 dollars to eradicate poverty the worldover by 2025. I believe him, my professor believes him, and I believe in my professor.

Rampant corruption in third world countries is, IMO, the main reason for the continued poverty in those regions of the world. I've travelled extensively through South America and the amount of money that is taken by those at the top of the political food chain due to the ignorance of the population is astonishing.

 

[cubanb]

Rampant corruption in third world countries is, IMO, the main reason for the continued poverty in those regions of the world. I've travelled extensively through South America and the amount of money that is taken by those at the top of the political food chain due to the ignorance of the population is astonishing.

I havent read anything by sachs, but this comment is right on. it really depends on what form the aid comes in. If it is foreign aid to the government, the money will likely never reach the people that need it. Corrupt governments are a big problem

 

[Fatghost]

I'm curious as to why tropical climate leads to poverty.

You'd think a colder climate would increase costs and reduce productivity, not the other way around.

 

[Tarazet]

Colder climates encourage you to keep moving in order to generate heat. Tropical climates encourage you to lie down and take a nap. There's no mystery there...

 

[cubanb]

I'm curious as to why tropical climate leads to poverty.

You'd think a colder climate would increase costs and reduce productivity, not the other way around.

thats my big beef, i think this correlation is a byproduct of regression analysis rather than real world application. I think most poverty stricken nations are closest to the equator because they have been the most recently established countries
africa and central southern america have these struggles

 

[pollo]

tropical climates proliferate the spread of endemic diseases such as tutsi flies and malaria and such. They are generally warmer in climate and have lesser rain so their agricultural productivity is going to be lower - so theyre limited to subsistance farming and are never able to produce a surplus. This focus on agriculture holds their economy to just that - subsistance - all their labor gets tied to this sector. As a result theyll never be able to move their labor into industry or service and find it harder to achieve sustainable development.

 

[kumanoki]

Rampant corruption in third world countries is, IMO, the main reason for the continued poverty in those regions of the world. I've travelled extensively through Japan and the amount of money that is taken by those at the top of the political food chain due to the ignorance of the population is astonishing.

I'm stealing this quote and making it mine.

 

[scorcho]

the tropical climate reasoning seems a bit ad-hoc, even with that explanation. the native americans of north america were just as tribal and 'undeveloped' as the latin/african region at the time of europe's colonial push.

 

[Flynn]

In many tropical climates you don't have to work terribly hard to survive. Sans drought, fruit grows readily and abundantly. It's very hard to starve, and easier to find stasis at the poverty level.

No cold winters means no need for fuel costs. You suffer through the summer, which is better than dying in the winter.

 

[mrklaw]

I'm looking forward to hearing the excuses when the third world gets their debt wiped out, then borrows shitloads and gets themselves fucked up again.

Seriously, Ethiopians are more than capable of looking after themselves and feeding themselves, but their 'governement' and others seem more content fucking over the population all the time.

I don't know what makes me more angry - seeing starving kids, or knowing that their goverment is to blame most of the time.

 

[Everdredbanned]

They are generally warmer in climate and have lesser rain so their agricultural productivity is going to be lower - so theyre limited to subsistance farming and are never able to produce a surplus. This focus on agriculture holds their economy to just that - subsistance - all their labor gets tied to this sector. As a result theyll never be able to move their labor into industry or service and find it harder to achieve sustainable development.

This makes me think of the development of civilization in the Near East. Peoples in the Taurus and Zagros mountains developed agriculture fueled by rainfall. These agricultural methods were adapted in areas to the south with lesser rainfall, supplementing the rainfall with basic irrigation. Further south, below the 200m isohyet, in a land called Mesopotamia, people began to employ full-scale irrigation, creating a surplus in food and subsequently allowing civilization to spring forth.

The real question, then, is thus: why are these nations unable to move beyond rainfall-supported agriculture?

 

[pollo]

The real question, then, is thus: why are these nations unable to move beyond rainfall-supported agriculture?

The lack of rainfall combined with less than arable land throws them into the cycle of poverty which is hard to escape. You can't develop very much if youre constantly living off your next till whenever that may be. Wars, endemic diseases all stem from the fact these nations are unable to provide for themselves. When youve got 40% of the labor force working in agriculture and the nation is still living in poverty you know something isn't right. These nations are unable to move forward because theyve been thrust into this cycle. Their great granparents were subsistence farmers...dying at the age of 40...their daddied were subsistance farmers dying at 49...etc..

 

[pollo]

heres a few readings you guys might be interested to read.

this one is an article on why the west was able to get to where it is now:
http://www.riseofthewest.net/thinkers/landes05.htm

heres a typical jeff sachs reading on poverty
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentaries/commentary_text.php4?id=755&lang=1&m=contributor

heres another one on the evils of globalization:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentaries/commentary_text.php4?id=1699&lang=1&m=contributor

 

[sol5377]

that was one of my favorite classes.

IMO, some of the main causes and proliferation of underdevelopment and poverty include:

1) lack of education
2) rampant corruption
3) cultural history that doesn't strongly promote advancement
4) national history (imperialism, wars, etc.)
5) dependency
6) lack of property rights
7) weak infrastructure
8) difficulty in obtaining capital
9) poor supply of natural resources and dependency on farming

and a few others I can't seem to remember atm. Solutions?

Educate as much as possible.
Promote the import of jobs requiring manual and skilled labor (clothing, manufacturing, etc.)
Crush corruption (requires strong, righteous leaders)
Distribute land fairly (even small plots for each family would go a long way)
Provide government loans to legitimate entrepreneurs
Improve roads, electricity, utilities, and communication (create jobs in the process)

Then watch as the nation as a whole develops and rises out of poverty and attracts foreigners and wealth. It's a beautiful thing.

 

[NetMapel]

The southeast Asians, the Europeans... etc all have evolved from one government system to another through long periods of time in order to reach the system that they have now. I guess countries in Africa and other tropical areas are just slowly going through the same process right now. In the future, with the right amount of foreign help, they should be able to achieve good economy. You can't simply just impose democracy or whatnot in some African countries that's 30 years behind the developed countries, since the concept is new, and doesn't fit their particular population... yet.

 

[peedi]

Rampant corruption in third world countries is, IMO, the main reason for the continued poverty in those regions of the world. I've travelled extensively through South America and the amount of money that is taken by those at the top of the political food chain due to the ignorance of the population is astonishing.

No. Colonization by Westerners is the cause for poverty. Look at every nation that was colonized, or host to a prolonged Western precense, and you'll see a pattern of corruption, poverty, and violent discord. It is the West's best integrests to keep these nations on the lowest rung. Africa and Latin America are prime examples, as are certain South Asian nations. Those nations that have resisted the Western blight have thrived. Japan is one such nation.

Also, workers should have ownership over the means of production.

 

[Nerevar]

No. Colonization by Westerners is the cause for poverty. Look at every nation that was colonized, or host to a prolonged Western precense, and you'll see a pattern of corruption, poverty, and violent discord. It is the West's best integrests to keep these nations on the lowest rung. Africa and Latin America are prime examples, as are certain South Asian nations. Those nations that have resisted the Western blight have thrived. Japan is one such nation.

Also, workers should have ownership over the means of production.

:rolleyes

Looks like we have another young marxist here!

 

[mrklaw]

No. Colonization by Westerners is the cause for poverty. Look at every nation that was colonized, or host to a prolonged Western precense, and you'll see a pattern of corruption, poverty, and violent discord. It is the West's best integrests to keep these nations on the lowest rung. Africa and Latin America are prime examples, as are certain South Asian nations. Those nations that have resisted the Western blight have thrived. Japan is one such nation.

Also, workers should have ownership over the means of production.

Yes, blame for example the British, who colonised much of Africa along with the French. We fucked them up good and proper, what with roads, buildings, infrastructure, democracy, education, health.

Then we leave because they want independence, and they do a grand job of keeping democracy and freedom for their people, and not simply lining the pockets of the corrupt, unelected governments and killing and torturing anyone that disagrees with them.

 

[Red Scarlet]

The British helped the Japanese with their Navy, and the US gave Japan surplus Civil War rifles before their war with Russia in 1905, and the US helped Japan after WW2...

 

[Che]

No. Colonization by Westerners is the cause for poverty. Look at every nation that was colonized, or host to a prolonged Western precense, and you'll see a pattern of corruption, poverty, and violent discord. It is the West's best integrests to keep these nations on the lowest rung. Africa and Latin America are prime examples, as are certain South Asian nations. Those nations that have resisted the Western blight have thrived. Japan is one such nation.

Also, workers should have ownership over the means of production.

IAWTP. When someone is weaker, it's easier to control him. And that's pretty much what the western nations do to keep them under their "protection". Anyone who thinks that the western countries have nothing to do with third-world's nations misery is seriously ignorant. It's like saying that the worldwide corporations don't like the inhuman working conditions in these countries.

 

[lexy]

Yes, blame for example the British, who colonised much of Africa along with the French. We fucked them up good and proper, what with roads, buildings, infrastructure, democracy, education, health.

Then we leave because they want independence, and they do a grand job of keeping democracy and freedom for their people, and not simply lining the pockets of the corrupt, unelected governments and killing and torturing anyone that disagrees with them.

I'm detecting an unusually high degree of bullshittery in this post. Name one democracy in colonial Africa.

 

[pollo]

I'm detecting an unusually high degree of bullshittery in this post. Name one democracy in colonial Africa.

???......Tanzania? Kenya? Democratic Rebuplic of the Congo..South Africa..Nigeria...Namibia...South Africa......Mozambique..Rwanda...Burundi..errr

 

[lexy]

No, not post-colonial Africa. Colonial Africa.

 

[scorcho]

Yes, blame for example the British, who colonised much of Africa along with the French. We fucked them up good and proper, what with roads, buildings, infrastructure, democracy, education, health.

Then we leave because they want independence, and they do a grand job of keeping democracy and freedom for their people, and not simply lining the pockets of the corrupt, unelected governments and killing and torturing anyone that disagrees with them.

woah, what is this, a revisionist "white man's burden" rhetoric?

 

[pollo]

You could say that colonization is one attribute for the poverty of all those nations - but by the same token how do you explain colonies that have been colonized and are now successful? Taking Singapore, Thailand and Honk Kong as one extreme - and to lesser extents India, Malaysia, Brazil..and to be fair South Africa and Nigeria.

If it wasnt for colonization english would never have permeated to the Philippines and I would have never been where I am now.
If it wasnt for colonization efficient buisness practices and again the english language would never be able to spread in India - where do you think they would be now if they didnt have that?

Jeffrey Sachs cites three types of poverty. Theres relative poverty - which is the poverty where you only own 1 television in the house, moderate poverty - which is where you meet your basic needs, but just barely; then theres extreme poverty, which is the kind of poverty I'm talking about.

Extreme poverty, as defined by the UN/World Bank/UNICEF..etc.. is getting by than less than a dollar a day - which means households cannot meet their basic needs for survival. These places are extremely poor due to their geography. They are landlocked - so access to water is a challenge they are constantly facing and their land is unarable, so combined with their unefficient farming practices they are basically the living dead.

Africa exhibits these problems more so than any country in the World. It is twice the size of the US and has tropical weather where it has both extremes of rainforests and desert- Its not easy to move from one place to another...think California in terms of driving distance-so if you want to get to that hospital you'll have to literally ride a car(and thats if youre one of the lucky ones enough to own one) 4 hours on average depending on where you live. These problems are not endowed by colonialism or problems of corruption - but by problems of geography. South America has poverty - yes, but their poverty is not extreme. Africans would be happy to live under conditions South Americns live in.

Anyone familiar with HDI rankings? HDI rankings or Human Developemnt index is a standardized way of measuring development of countries. Since there are so many determinants in figuring out just how much a country has developed - GNP..education level..#of televisions...popular sovereignty....infant mortality rates....life expectancy...literacy rates..gender equality....there is no one way to determine development, thus the HDI was developed. It weighs the four most important factors as believed by the UN..and calculates them into a number between 0-1...1 being most developed and 0 being the least. The UN uses GNP/Capita, Life Expectancy, Literacy rates and infant mortality rates as the standard for HDI. And take a look at the results for yourself:

This is countries with high levels of Development. Any Norwegians in the room? Congratulations you guys are the most developed country in the world. Olimario is right in wanting to visit you guys first:

Then theres medium levels of development...South-East Asian Countries and Latin American Countries...

Then almost exclusive to Africans (with a few notable exceptions) are the bottom rung of the ladder...

Hence why poverty is mainly determined by tropical climates and high transportation costs. Africa is on the bottom rung of the ladder due to their geography.

 

[lexy]

Pollo, this is a good thread and I'm happy just reading what people have to say on the subject (your post appears to be cut off at the end... EDIT: nevermind). I was, however, taken aback by mrklaw's comments that seem to suggest that colonialism didn't have any negative effects on Africa. Personally, I'm more of the opinion that you can't say whether or not colonialism was good or bad. It just was.

Would you say colonialism didn't have any negative effects on Africa?

 

[pollo]

colonialism arguably had some negative effects on Africa theres no question about it.
The whole Rwandan genocide finds its roots traced back to Lord Speke. Back in the late 19th century, determinism was a big science over in Europe, and with the exploration of Africa - was expounded to apply to a natural setting. One of the most distinct examples were the Hutu and the Tutsis - who live right in the area of modern day Rwanda and Burundi. Before Speke they noticed no difference in their skin or height and had gotten along well for many centuries. But because of darwinism and the whole theory of natural selection - Speke was motivated to apply it to both the Hutus and the Tutsis who lived in the same area. Empirically there were no correlations in height or skin color - but Speke cited differences (ie. Tutsi noses were 2 mm longer on average than hutu noses, Tutsis were taller than Hutus-which was not true). He made these distinctions and declared Tutsis to be the superior race. Belgium came around the early 1900's and colonized the area of Rwanda. Using Speke's theory the Belgians instituted a card identity system making the distinction between Tutsi and Hutu. Tutsis were considered to be the "higher class" and given governmental positions while Hutus were considered the lower class getting low level employment - janitorial work..etc. The Tutsi population was the minority in Rwanda at about 10-15% i think. So when the Belgians left in 1950-60 the Hutu population, weary of being treated as inferior and having an obvious advantage revolted and overtook the government and took power. Years of feeling inferior will result in a backlash - and thats just what happened. A series of Tutsi killings took place in the 1950's and 60's - but was quelled eventually. Then in 1980 Rwandan economy dropped severely and as a result, many people were left with no jobs. Hutus directed their economic problems to Tutsis- ala Hitler with the Jews. Nothing major happened - pockets of Tutsi murders would be heard about - until 1994 when the president's plane was shot down. At this time massive Hutus had been brainwashed by propaganda on the radio and media to direct all their hate towards the Tutsis, and so this was the catalyst. 800,000 - 1,000,000 dead. And all because it started with some asshole who made a distinction where there was none.

So yes. Colonization has had its evils - but its important to know that there are positives out there. As for the case of Africa - yes their are definately negative effects. But cities like Dar Es Salaam and Nairobi thrive due to western ideals of free market capitalism.