We must all learn to live together as brothers. Or we will all perish together as fools
Martin Luther King 1929 – 1968
A little bit of sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
All the world’s a stage
And all the women and men merely players
They have their exits and their entrances
And one man in his time plays many parts
William Shakespeare (1564-1616), As you like it
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance
Anonymous
There is no cure for birth and death, save to enjoy the interval
George Santayana (1863-1952)
KAHLIL GIBRAN’S IMMORTAL LINES ON MARRIAGE
But let there be spaces in your togetherness,
And let the winds of heaven dance between you
Love one another, nut make not bond of love
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls
Fill each others cup but drink not from one cup
Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf
Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each of you be alone
Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music
Give your hearts, but not into each others keeping.
For only the hand of life can contain your hearts
And stand together yet not too near together
For the pillars of the temple stand apart
And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other’s shadow
Your children are not your children
They are the sons and daughters of life’s longing for itself
They come through you but not from you
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you
You may give them your love but not your thoughts
For they have their own thoughts
You may house their bodies but not their souls
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and he bends you with his might that his arrow may go swift and far
Let your bending in the archers hand be for gladness;
For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so he loves also the bow that is stable
Kahlil Gibran, from ‘The Prophet’
There is a seductive shimmer on the horizon of life.
Withing it lies the promise of love, the joy of fulfillment and the tranquility of peace. Approach it with great care, for it is as fragile as a mirage.
S. Khasoggi- Mirage
Our world is no more permanent that a wave rising on the ocean. Whatever our struggles and triumphs, however we may suffer them, all too soon they bleed into a wash just like watery ink on paper.
Arthur Golden, Memoirs of a geisha
Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off the goal
Henry Ford, Chicken soup for the Soul
Our business in life is not to get ahead of others, but to get ahead of ourselves- to break our own records, to outstrip our yesterday by our today
Steward B. Johnson
If you are feeling low, don’t despair. The sun has a sinking spell every night but it comes back every morning
Anonymous
We must view young people not as empty bottles to be filled but as candles to be lit
Robert H Shaffer
One of the most tragic things I know about human nature is that all of us tend to out off living. We are all dreaming of some magical rose garden over the horizon instead of enjoying the roses that are blooming outside our window today.
Dale Carnegie
An optimist is one who laughs to forget his problems, a pessimist forgets to laugh
Anonymous
Anger and judgment go hand in hand. You wouldn’t be angry with someone if you had not first judged them.
Anonymous
I can resist everything but temptation
Oscar Wilde, Lady Windemere’s Fan
Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration
Thomas Alva Edison (1847 – 1931)
We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.
Jonathan Swift (1667-1745)
When deeds speak, words are nothing
African proverb
Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
Communism: You have two cows. The government takes both and gives you some milk.
Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes both and sells the milk
Bureacracy: You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots one, milks the other and then spills the milk.
Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull
Anonymous- from an Econ textbook
Jun 29, 2006
When will Kenya learn to strike while the iron is hot
Agoa: When will Kenya strike while iron is hot?
Story by: Shreya Shah
Publication Date: 6/29/2006
The recent Agoa meeting in Washington has been a source of heated debate among Africa's trade ministers, described by some as a "matter of life and death".
The recent unveiling of a project to revamp cotton growing in eastern and central Kenya illustrates yet another example of a missed opportunity and lethargy on the Government's part.
The September, 2007, deadline stipulating that Kenya and many other Agoa targets will export textiles to the US only on condition that the cotton or fabric used be produced in Africa is no news. So why is the Government trying to revamp a long-dead industry?
What makes it certain that a Sh288 million matching grant is the way to maintain preferential access to the US market? What happens when the World Bank taps run dry? Will farmers continue growing cotton at a loss and under unfavourable conditions?
Kenya's cotton sector has been on its deathbed for almost two decades now and the late attempts to resuscitate it will do little good.
Cotton farmers stopped growing it for various reasons, which continue to be the main problems – an inefficient and corrupt marketing board, US cotton subsidies, astronomically high taxes on fertilisers, lost yields to pests, no access to high-yield genetic cotton seeds, little access to credit, poor roads in the cotton belt, absence of a regulatory and legal framework: the list is long.
It would be more prudent for Kenya not to count on textiles as a long-term solution to industrial development and job-creation. To become more internationally competitive in textiles, or any industry, for that matter, requires a host of actions but, sadly, the time for taking these actions has expired.
The biggest lesson is that there is a need for Kenya to diversify enterprises and markets and avoid over-reliance on goodwill from external policies over which we have no influence.
Shreya Shah,
Brandeis University, USA.
________________________________________
© 2005 NationMediaGroup All Rights Reserved
Story by: Shreya Shah
Publication Date: 6/29/2006
The recent Agoa meeting in Washington has been a source of heated debate among Africa's trade ministers, described by some as a "matter of life and death".
The recent unveiling of a project to revamp cotton growing in eastern and central Kenya illustrates yet another example of a missed opportunity and lethargy on the Government's part.
The September, 2007, deadline stipulating that Kenya and many other Agoa targets will export textiles to the US only on condition that the cotton or fabric used be produced in Africa is no news. So why is the Government trying to revamp a long-dead industry?
What makes it certain that a Sh288 million matching grant is the way to maintain preferential access to the US market? What happens when the World Bank taps run dry? Will farmers continue growing cotton at a loss and under unfavourable conditions?
Kenya's cotton sector has been on its deathbed for almost two decades now and the late attempts to resuscitate it will do little good.
Cotton farmers stopped growing it for various reasons, which continue to be the main problems – an inefficient and corrupt marketing board, US cotton subsidies, astronomically high taxes on fertilisers, lost yields to pests, no access to high-yield genetic cotton seeds, little access to credit, poor roads in the cotton belt, absence of a regulatory and legal framework: the list is long.
It would be more prudent for Kenya not to count on textiles as a long-term solution to industrial development and job-creation. To become more internationally competitive in textiles, or any industry, for that matter, requires a host of actions but, sadly, the time for taking these actions has expired.
The biggest lesson is that there is a need for Kenya to diversify enterprises and markets and avoid over-reliance on goodwill from external policies over which we have no influence.
Shreya Shah,
Brandeis University, USA.
________________________________________
© 2005 NationMediaGroup All Rights Reserved
Jun 27, 2006
JAINISM AND ECONOMICS
A global problem that threatens the welfare of all people is the conflict between Communism and Capitalism. Though totally different, they have these things in common - an insatiable appetite for material consumption and a corresponding disregard for moral principles. The result is mass exploitation on both sides. The only way this materialistic tide can turn is by the introduction of moral consideration into global economics that can bring both peace and prosperity to all; it must have a moral base. Of late many large corporations are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of corporate governance and corporate social responsibility and CEOs have mounting pressure on taking action to reduce whit collar crime. Such businesses may not be followers of Jainism but they have certainly seen fantastic results from such corporate activities.
Jaina ethics enjoins upon the householder certain vows which are economically oriented: Truth, Nonstealing, Nonpossession, to mention only some. The vow of truthfulness requires a man to abstain from duplicity in his business and to conduct its affairs on the lines of honesty and ethics. Nonstealing permits no occasions for falsehood (fraud and corruption). All deceptions (maya) are prohibited, including dishonest gain through smuggling, bribery, and any sort of disreputable financial practice (adattadana). In this way truthfulness and honesty are prerequisites for the practice of the vow of Aparigraha (nonattachment).
The essence of the economic virtue of Aparigraha is that one should set a limit to one’s own needs and whatever surplus one may accumulate beyond these needs should be disposed of through charities. By limiting one’s property, the vow keeps in check the concentration of wealth and paves the way for its wide and more even distribution. Aparigraha is the only means whereby the growing gulf between the rich and the poor can be peacefully bridged. Its message is that we live in a society from which we profit and that, for the economic health of that society, the fair distribution of wealth is essential. Therefore, business dealings must be conducted in the nonacquisitive spirit of aparigraha.
EXCERPTS FROM MIRA KAMDAR'S MOTIBAS TATOOS
EXCERPTS FROM MOTIBA’S TATTOOS, Mira Kamdar
An ancient nomadic the Kathiawars who spawned my family were always in the words of my father “people from somewhere else”. Certainly in the century just ended that is who we became more than any other time in our history: people from some place else. The wanderings my family has undertaken in the past one hundred years in pursuit of more tempting opportunities have added layers of lost homeland to our past. Kathiawar remains the land of origin, but the decades long sojourn in Burma is layered on top of it, a second lost homeland.
A people from someplace else are ever outsiders. They can easily be resented. At the same time, their footlessness breeds a kind of tribal loyalty. In the absence of a continuum of place, we cling to a continuum of religion, custom language, cuisine, community spirit and the recognition and sharing of thee with people like us no matter where they live in the world. It is a cultural continuum that is portable. It can be moved as easily as a suitcase from Singapore to London, taken down and brought to New York or Chicago, found in the home of a relative or community member in Nairobi or Tokyo.
It is best to be in, but not initiated: It is limiting to belong to a single group. The best of all situations is to be able to drop in, speak the lingo, be accepted but retain all the while an outsides perspective, and to be able to do this with respect to as many groups as possible.
Lo, soul, seest thou not
God’s purpose from the first?
The earth to be spanned,
Connected by network
The races, neigbours to marry
And be given in marriage,
The oceans to be crossed
The distant brought near
The lands to be welded together
There have perhaps been many similar books written but this one definitely stands out. In many ways (at least for me) it gives an answer to the often asked question who are we?
Are we Kenyans? Are we Indians? Are we Kenyan Indians? Are we Indian Kenyans or, are we Kenyans of Indian origin? Are we third generation Indians born in Kenya Are we NRIs?
Well the answer is, that in the increasingly globalised world more commonly referred to as the “global village”, It is had to distinguish or precisely group our identities. We are one happy human family, one great GLOBAL MENTING POT! The word globalisation is another recent buzzword. In more ways than one, I think we are a great part and parcel of it, perhaps even a catalyst?
No need to be confused, be proud of who you are and as Mira put it beautifully, it is best to in but not fully initiated.
In short, BE PROUD OF WHO YOU ARE, AS a person and fellow human being, acknowledge your uniqueness, be proud of your roots and your culture and of course, ‘drop in, speak the lingo but remember to remain an outsider!
An ancient nomadic the Kathiawars who spawned my family were always in the words of my father “people from somewhere else”. Certainly in the century just ended that is who we became more than any other time in our history: people from some place else. The wanderings my family has undertaken in the past one hundred years in pursuit of more tempting opportunities have added layers of lost homeland to our past. Kathiawar remains the land of origin, but the decades long sojourn in Burma is layered on top of it, a second lost homeland.
A people from someplace else are ever outsiders. They can easily be resented. At the same time, their footlessness breeds a kind of tribal loyalty. In the absence of a continuum of place, we cling to a continuum of religion, custom language, cuisine, community spirit and the recognition and sharing of thee with people like us no matter where they live in the world. It is a cultural continuum that is portable. It can be moved as easily as a suitcase from Singapore to London, taken down and brought to New York or Chicago, found in the home of a relative or community member in Nairobi or Tokyo.
It is best to be in, but not initiated: It is limiting to belong to a single group. The best of all situations is to be able to drop in, speak the lingo, be accepted but retain all the while an outsides perspective, and to be able to do this with respect to as many groups as possible.
Lo, soul, seest thou not
God’s purpose from the first?
The earth to be spanned,
Connected by network
The races, neigbours to marry
And be given in marriage,
The oceans to be crossed
The distant brought near
The lands to be welded together
There have perhaps been many similar books written but this one definitely stands out. In many ways (at least for me) it gives an answer to the often asked question who are we?
Are we Kenyans? Are we Indians? Are we Kenyan Indians? Are we Indian Kenyans or, are we Kenyans of Indian origin? Are we third generation Indians born in Kenya Are we NRIs?
Well the answer is, that in the increasingly globalised world more commonly referred to as the “global village”, It is had to distinguish or precisely group our identities. We are one happy human family, one great GLOBAL MENTING POT! The word globalisation is another recent buzzword. In more ways than one, I think we are a great part and parcel of it, perhaps even a catalyst?
No need to be confused, be proud of who you are and as Mira put it beautifully, it is best to in but not fully initiated.
In short, BE PROUD OF WHO YOU ARE, AS a person and fellow human being, acknowledge your uniqueness, be proud of your roots and your culture and of course, ‘drop in, speak the lingo but remember to remain an outsider!
Jun 25, 2006
AGOA OFFERS LITTLE HOPE FOR AFRICA
Enterprise in Africa
The recent African Growth Opportunity Act meeting held in Washington has been a source for much concern and debate within many African governments and the U.S. Congress. Mpho Malie of Lesotho referred to AGOA as "a matter of life and death" ("Life or Death," Embassy Row, World, June 14). This certainly is not a true account of the real problem African countries face. One of the provisions, due to expire in 2007, is that countries must produce apparel from cotton grown in Africa if they are to continue enjoying the benefits of AGOA. Countries are complaining that 2007 is too soon and that they need more time.
Enterprise in Africa
The solution for AGOA-eligible countries lies in developing more competitive, vertically integrated production of cotton to textiles and the apparel industry if they are to continue exporting apparel to the United States.
Farmers in many African countries have abandoned growing cotton because of unpredictable prices, thanks to U.S. cotton subsidies.
AGOA was intended originally to benefit small- and medium-size enterprises as well as large businesses and state-owned enterprises. However, most of the AGOA benefits have only attracted foreign firms benefiting from the cheap and abundant labor.
If African countries are serious about being real players in the global trading system, they must realize, first and foremost, that a conducive investment climate is key. Countries need to focus on fighting corruption, investing in transport infrastructure and encouraging private-sector financing.
But the biggest lesson from all this is that there is a need for African governments to diversify enterprises and markets and avoid overreliance on good will from external policies over which they have no influence.
The recent African Growth Opportunity Act meeting held in Washington has been a source for much concern and debate within many African governments and the U.S. Congress. Mpho Malie of Lesotho referred to AGOA as "a matter of life and death" ("Life or Death," Embassy Row, World, June 14). This certainly is not a true account of the real problem African countries face. One of the provisions, due to expire in 2007, is that countries must produce apparel from cotton grown in Africa if they are to continue enjoying the benefits of AGOA. Countries are complaining that 2007 is too soon and that they need more time.
Enterprise in Africa
The solution for AGOA-eligible countries lies in developing more competitive, vertically integrated production of cotton to textiles and the apparel industry if they are to continue exporting apparel to the United States.
Farmers in many African countries have abandoned growing cotton because of unpredictable prices, thanks to U.S. cotton subsidies.
AGOA was intended originally to benefit small- and medium-size enterprises as well as large businesses and state-owned enterprises. However, most of the AGOA benefits have only attracted foreign firms benefiting from the cheap and abundant labor.
If African countries are serious about being real players in the global trading system, they must realize, first and foremost, that a conducive investment climate is key. Countries need to focus on fighting corruption, investing in transport infrastructure and encouraging private-sector financing.
But the biggest lesson from all this is that there is a need for African governments to diversify enterprises and markets and avoid overreliance on good will from external policies over which they have no influence.
Property an essential component of economic success IN AFRICA
Property an essential component of economic success IN AFRICA
Karl Marx predicted the imminent collapse of capitalism. As the rich got richer, and the poor got poorer, he claimed the increasing staring on society would ultimately lead to a convulsion that would bring a new socialist order. Marx couldn’t have been more wrong. Since he died, capitalism in the West has led to more affluence: child labour is a thing of the past, women are free to support themselves, and manual labourers considered death as deliverance can now holiday on the sun-kissed beaches of Ibiza.
Although, capitalist ideas have supporters mainly in the Western world and in the emerging economies of South-east Asia, it has not travelled well in most of the Third World countries, especially in Africa. As majority of the world’s poor can readily testify, the solutions nurtured in Western corridors of power do not necessarily work in the villages in which they live. Reason being is that capital, the most essential component of economic success has received little or no attention. As the world famous Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto’s study shows, the poor actually have a substantial amount of savings which if it were put to good use, no wealthy nation would ever write a cheque in the form of “aid”. But unfortunately, most of this capital is “dead” capital- it is not being put into any use so the poor remain poor.
How can capital be used to generate wealth?
Capital is born by representing in writing- in a title, a security, a contract and other such records- the most useful qualities of an asset. This is where potential value is described and registered. The moment you focus your attention on the title of a house and not the house itself, you have already stepped out from the material world into the conceptual one- one in which capital resides.
This representation releases the house from its purely physical form; it can be used as a collateral for a loan, as equity exchanged for investment and so on. Thus in the West houses are multi-purpose- apart from providing shelter, they carry out various tasks. Moreover, formal and legal ownership of property facilitates its acceptance as an asset. A third benefit is that it makes people more accountable since any breach by a citizen is recorded, jeopardising his reputation.
The lack of legal property in many poor countries explains why citizens there cannot make profitable contracts with strangers, cannot get credit, or insurance By contrast, citizens of richer nations can enter a contract for virtually anything that is reasonable, provided they show a commitment. And commitment is better understood when backed by a pledge of property, be in the form of a mortgage, or any other security. The most important function of a formal property system however, is that it transforms assets so that they can do additional work. It is in essence, as Soto describes “fungible”, that is, fashioned to suit any transaction. Fungible capital offers its owner a wide variety of option and potentials.
With such characteristics, property does so much more than keep the rain and cold out: it acts as a mediating device that facilitates prosperity.
The poor of the continent own many billions of dollars worth of property but it often has no recognisable legal title. A man may live in a house worth $500, considerably more than any micro-finance institution lends but he cannot walk into a bank with a deed as security. In most poor countries, the procedures for owning property legally are usually so tortuous and corrupt that the poor just give up unable to tap into the wealth they already have so they remain poor. This phenomenon was exactly the same in the Western world approximately four centuries ago. The US was at that time a Third World country. One of its major impediments to development was lack of a clear legal framework with which settlers could use the land they appropriated to generate more wealth. It was only with the formalisation of property rights in the late 19th century that American capitalism really took off; within a generation it had overtaken Britain.
With property rights in place, property becomes far more than a roof and four walls- it becomes a tool for generating wealth. If only “dead” capital could be put into good use, the governments of poor countries would forever put away their begging bowls.
There therefore is an urgent need for an effort to give legal legitimacy to properties that an individual owns. Property must be considered as something easily convertible into cash. The way forward lies in a call for action by legislators in parliament, combined with a more imaginative approach to business from the banking sector. Most countries in the continent have an extremely conservative banking sector obsessed with security. The outcome is prohibitive bureaucracy that knows no end and high interest rates resulting from non-performing loans.
In most African countries, there is usually a gaping hole between the very small and very large businesses. At micro-level, many NGOs and lending trusts are ready to offer loans to rural folks to start small enterprises. At the other end, there are large multinationals that lend to multinationals and the likes. But how do the middle-sized businesses begin? This is where majority of poor countries are miserably missing out- in the areas of farm mechanisation, irrigation, food processing that need neither a very small nor a large amount of start-up capital.
And another thing, it is high time Africa discards the mindset that allows them to rely on the international dole called “aid” and other Keynesian carrots dangling in front of her every hungry maws. These are but the latest sop in the post-colonial intensification of the 500-year old plunder. The West continues to strengthen the neo-colonial mentality among Africans that everything is hopeless unless aid is coming, that there is nothing they are capable of accomplishing through their own bootstraps.
The future of Africa lies in learning to generate wealth from within the continent through homegrown solutions. African leaders have for too long blamed the continent’s miseries on its colonial masters. The success of the Southeast Asian tigers blows this argument away. It took Indonesia less than a generation to cut the level of poverty from 60% to 20%. Today, Singapore, a developing nation with no natural resources is the most competitive economy in the world, beating the USA to second place.
The point is that it is possible as a matter of sustained policy effort to reduce the incidence of poverty and create an affluent continent within a relatively short time. Compared to Singapore, it should be a piece of cake for Africa, a continent so rich. Africans must realise that the rest of the world does not exactly love them; they may be poor but are not juvenile truants to be patronised. Nor are they imbeciles to be merely tolerated on the world stage. They are full players; it is a pity that they have to pay for sheer survival.
Africa is a rich and prosperous continent that still has its dignity. It may be a sleeping giant but wake up one day it will.
Karl Marx predicted the imminent collapse of capitalism. As the rich got richer, and the poor got poorer, he claimed the increasing staring on society would ultimately lead to a convulsion that would bring a new socialist order. Marx couldn’t have been more wrong. Since he died, capitalism in the West has led to more affluence: child labour is a thing of the past, women are free to support themselves, and manual labourers considered death as deliverance can now holiday on the sun-kissed beaches of Ibiza.
Although, capitalist ideas have supporters mainly in the Western world and in the emerging economies of South-east Asia, it has not travelled well in most of the Third World countries, especially in Africa. As majority of the world’s poor can readily testify, the solutions nurtured in Western corridors of power do not necessarily work in the villages in which they live. Reason being is that capital, the most essential component of economic success has received little or no attention. As the world famous Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto’s study shows, the poor actually have a substantial amount of savings which if it were put to good use, no wealthy nation would ever write a cheque in the form of “aid”. But unfortunately, most of this capital is “dead” capital- it is not being put into any use so the poor remain poor.
How can capital be used to generate wealth?
Capital is born by representing in writing- in a title, a security, a contract and other such records- the most useful qualities of an asset. This is where potential value is described and registered. The moment you focus your attention on the title of a house and not the house itself, you have already stepped out from the material world into the conceptual one- one in which capital resides.
This representation releases the house from its purely physical form; it can be used as a collateral for a loan, as equity exchanged for investment and so on. Thus in the West houses are multi-purpose- apart from providing shelter, they carry out various tasks. Moreover, formal and legal ownership of property facilitates its acceptance as an asset. A third benefit is that it makes people more accountable since any breach by a citizen is recorded, jeopardising his reputation.
The lack of legal property in many poor countries explains why citizens there cannot make profitable contracts with strangers, cannot get credit, or insurance By contrast, citizens of richer nations can enter a contract for virtually anything that is reasonable, provided they show a commitment. And commitment is better understood when backed by a pledge of property, be in the form of a mortgage, or any other security. The most important function of a formal property system however, is that it transforms assets so that they can do additional work. It is in essence, as Soto describes “fungible”, that is, fashioned to suit any transaction. Fungible capital offers its owner a wide variety of option and potentials.
With such characteristics, property does so much more than keep the rain and cold out: it acts as a mediating device that facilitates prosperity.
The poor of the continent own many billions of dollars worth of property but it often has no recognisable legal title. A man may live in a house worth $500, considerably more than any micro-finance institution lends but he cannot walk into a bank with a deed as security. In most poor countries, the procedures for owning property legally are usually so tortuous and corrupt that the poor just give up unable to tap into the wealth they already have so they remain poor. This phenomenon was exactly the same in the Western world approximately four centuries ago. The US was at that time a Third World country. One of its major impediments to development was lack of a clear legal framework with which settlers could use the land they appropriated to generate more wealth. It was only with the formalisation of property rights in the late 19th century that American capitalism really took off; within a generation it had overtaken Britain.
With property rights in place, property becomes far more than a roof and four walls- it becomes a tool for generating wealth. If only “dead” capital could be put into good use, the governments of poor countries would forever put away their begging bowls.
There therefore is an urgent need for an effort to give legal legitimacy to properties that an individual owns. Property must be considered as something easily convertible into cash. The way forward lies in a call for action by legislators in parliament, combined with a more imaginative approach to business from the banking sector. Most countries in the continent have an extremely conservative banking sector obsessed with security. The outcome is prohibitive bureaucracy that knows no end and high interest rates resulting from non-performing loans.
In most African countries, there is usually a gaping hole between the very small and very large businesses. At micro-level, many NGOs and lending trusts are ready to offer loans to rural folks to start small enterprises. At the other end, there are large multinationals that lend to multinationals and the likes. But how do the middle-sized businesses begin? This is where majority of poor countries are miserably missing out- in the areas of farm mechanisation, irrigation, food processing that need neither a very small nor a large amount of start-up capital.
And another thing, it is high time Africa discards the mindset that allows them to rely on the international dole called “aid” and other Keynesian carrots dangling in front of her every hungry maws. These are but the latest sop in the post-colonial intensification of the 500-year old plunder. The West continues to strengthen the neo-colonial mentality among Africans that everything is hopeless unless aid is coming, that there is nothing they are capable of accomplishing through their own bootstraps.
The future of Africa lies in learning to generate wealth from within the continent through homegrown solutions. African leaders have for too long blamed the continent’s miseries on its colonial masters. The success of the Southeast Asian tigers blows this argument away. It took Indonesia less than a generation to cut the level of poverty from 60% to 20%. Today, Singapore, a developing nation with no natural resources is the most competitive economy in the world, beating the USA to second place.
The point is that it is possible as a matter of sustained policy effort to reduce the incidence of poverty and create an affluent continent within a relatively short time. Compared to Singapore, it should be a piece of cake for Africa, a continent so rich. Africans must realise that the rest of the world does not exactly love them; they may be poor but are not juvenile truants to be patronised. Nor are they imbeciles to be merely tolerated on the world stage. They are full players; it is a pity that they have to pay for sheer survival.
Africa is a rich and prosperous continent that still has its dignity. It may be a sleeping giant but wake up one day it will.
WE NEED INSTITUTIONAL REFORM, NOT AID
WE NEED INSTITUTIONAL REFORM, NOT AID
That the world has well meaning individuals ready to assist others but employing the wrong strategies can not be disputed. Why are aid flows to poor nations problematic? First, aid can overwhelm the administrative capacity of governments, leading to waste and inefficient and ineffective programs. Second, it is critical to ensure that an increase in aid does not reduce a country’s incentive to adopt good policies and reform inefficient institutions. Third, dependence on aid may weaken accountability and impede the development of a healthy civil society if a recipient government is more accountable to its donors that to its own citizens.
The more fundamental problem is that “development assistance” is based largely on false premise that poverty is in itself a barrier to development. This is not true; economic development in Western Europe did not require massive redistribution from the rich to the poor. Rather, it required a change in the structure of Europe’s institutions; a move away from the feudal system of the early middle ages to a trading economy. If countries are to develop in a sustainable manner, then institutional reform, not aid is the solution.
Institutions are the framework within which people act and interact- they are the rules, customs, norms ad laws that bind us to one another and act as boundaries to our behaviour. Long run development assistance entails much more than a boost to investment to sustain growth momentum, build resilience to shocks and facilitate socially acceptable burden sharing in response to such shocks. The importance of market-creating institutions that protect property rights and ensure that contracts are enforced cannot be underestimated. Development assistance should focus in helping countries in building market regulating institutions that deal with externalities, economies of scale and imperfect information and, market stabilising institutions that ensure low inflation, minimise economic volatility and avert financial crises.
In his book The Mystery of Capital Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has shown that economic progress depends mainly on society’s institutions. That means formal property rights, free markets and the rule of law. These institutions enable people to own and exchange goods without fear of arbitrary expropriations, either by bandits or by the state. They thereby encourage economic activity which enables people to escape from, poverty.
For many mow- and middle-income countries, trade and aid complement each other. Developing countries’ prospects for achieving the MDGs would be significantly enhanced with greater access to markets in industrial countries. The highest tariffs faced by developing country exporters are on agricultural products, processed foods, and textiles and apparel products that dominate the exports of the poorest countries. Despite the setback at Cancún, successful completion of the Doha Round could generate substantial income gains for low and middle income nations, and therefore remains a priority.
While there is no one answer as to what makes ODA successful, there are some implications for aid delivery. Accepting national goals, improving donor coordination and harmonising donor polices as far as possible with the country’s own systems. Assistance should be phased in and sequences with improvement in county capacities so as to avoid potential problems associated with aid dependence.
That the world has well meaning individuals ready to assist others but employing the wrong strategies can not be disputed. Why are aid flows to poor nations problematic? First, aid can overwhelm the administrative capacity of governments, leading to waste and inefficient and ineffective programs. Second, it is critical to ensure that an increase in aid does not reduce a country’s incentive to adopt good policies and reform inefficient institutions. Third, dependence on aid may weaken accountability and impede the development of a healthy civil society if a recipient government is more accountable to its donors that to its own citizens.
The more fundamental problem is that “development assistance” is based largely on false premise that poverty is in itself a barrier to development. This is not true; economic development in Western Europe did not require massive redistribution from the rich to the poor. Rather, it required a change in the structure of Europe’s institutions; a move away from the feudal system of the early middle ages to a trading economy. If countries are to develop in a sustainable manner, then institutional reform, not aid is the solution.
Institutions are the framework within which people act and interact- they are the rules, customs, norms ad laws that bind us to one another and act as boundaries to our behaviour. Long run development assistance entails much more than a boost to investment to sustain growth momentum, build resilience to shocks and facilitate socially acceptable burden sharing in response to such shocks. The importance of market-creating institutions that protect property rights and ensure that contracts are enforced cannot be underestimated. Development assistance should focus in helping countries in building market regulating institutions that deal with externalities, economies of scale and imperfect information and, market stabilising institutions that ensure low inflation, minimise economic volatility and avert financial crises.
In his book The Mystery of Capital Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has shown that economic progress depends mainly on society’s institutions. That means formal property rights, free markets and the rule of law. These institutions enable people to own and exchange goods without fear of arbitrary expropriations, either by bandits or by the state. They thereby encourage economic activity which enables people to escape from, poverty.
For many mow- and middle-income countries, trade and aid complement each other. Developing countries’ prospects for achieving the MDGs would be significantly enhanced with greater access to markets in industrial countries. The highest tariffs faced by developing country exporters are on agricultural products, processed foods, and textiles and apparel products that dominate the exports of the poorest countries. Despite the setback at Cancún, successful completion of the Doha Round could generate substantial income gains for low and middle income nations, and therefore remains a priority.
While there is no one answer as to what makes ODA successful, there are some implications for aid delivery. Accepting national goals, improving donor coordination and harmonising donor polices as far as possible with the country’s own systems. Assistance should be phased in and sequences with improvement in county capacities so as to avoid potential problems associated with aid dependence.
IMF, WORLD BANK’S SAPs A MAJOUR CAUSE OF POVERTY.
IMF, WORLD BANK’S SAPs A MAJOUR CAUSE OF POVERTY.
“DEBT is an efficient tool. It ensures access to other people’s raw materials and infrastructure on the cheapest possible terms. Dozens of countries must compete for shrinking export markets and can export only a limited range of products because of Northern protectionism and their lack of cash to invest in diversification. Market saturation ensues, reducing exporters’ income to a bare minimum while the North enjoys huge savings. The IMF cannot seem to understand that investing in (a) healthy, well-fed, literate population is the most intelligent economic choice a country can make.” Susan George in A fate Worse Than Debt.
Many developing countries are in poverty partly due to the money-lending programmes by institutions such as the IMF and World Bank. Their programme have been heavily criticised for many years for resulting in an increased dependency by the developing countries upon the richer nations.
The IMF imposes its Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) to ensure debt repayment n such a way that social spending must be cut back. In effect, it demands poor nations to lower the standards of living of their masses. Under a plan devised by President Reagan’s Secretary to the Treasury, James Baker, indebted countries were offered ‘servicing’ loans in return for the ‘structural adjustment’ of their economies. This meant that the economic direction of each country would be planned, monitored and controlled in Washington. ‘Liberal containment’ was replaced by the Laissez-faire capitalism.
A lot of poverty we see around the worlds is related to the way global markets and trading practices are structures and how they have been shaped in previous years. In order to remain attractive to foreign investors, the IMF prescribes cutbacks. These factors lead to further misery fir developing nations and keep them dependent on developed nations. The SAPs also mean that these countries must export more in order to raise enough money to pay-off debts. Because there are so many nations being asked or forced into the global market place before they are economically and socially ready, it is like a big price war. The resources then become even cheaper from the poorer regions. Governments then need to further increase exports just to keep their currencies stable. They therefore must spend less, reduce consumption, remove or decrease financial regulations and devalue the national currency. Over time, the value of labour decreases, capital flows become more volatile and we get into a spiralling race to the bottom. These nations are then told to peg their currencies to the dollar. But keeping the exchange rate stable is costly due to increased interest rates. Investors obviously concerned about their assets pull out. In worst cases, capita flights can lead to economic collapse le we have seen in the Asian crises of 1997/8.
Of course, the blame by mainstream freemarketeers is laid on emerging markets and their governments’ restrictive or inefficient practices, crony capitalism etc, which is cruel irony. Keeping exchange rates in their favour, courtesy of the IMF and donors, means that the poor nations get even poorer. This is one of the backbones to today’s so-called “Free” trade. In this form it is seen as an unfair, one-way extractive game.
One of the many things the Bretton Woods twins [prescribe is that the developing nations should open up to allow more imports in an exports more of their commodities. However, this is precisely what contributes to poverty and dependency. If a society spends $100 to manufacture a product locally, the money that is used to buy materials, employ labour moves trough the economy as each recipient spends it. Due to this multiplies effect, $100 worth of primary products can add several hundreds dollars to the GNP of that country. If money is spent in another country, the multiplier takes effect in the other country. This is the reason an industrialised product-exporting country is wealthier than an undeveloped product-importing commodity exporting country is poor. Developed countries grow rich by selling capital-intensive (cheap) products for a high price and buying labour-intensive (expensive) products for a low price. This imbalance of trade expands the gap between the rich and the poor. This maintains the monopolisation of the tools of production, and assures a continued market for the product.
This model of development, whereby the North imposes their conditions on the South has come under criticism by many NGOs. True, in some cases corrupt governments have borrowed money from these institutions and ended up using that money to pursue selfish interests, conflicts, arms deals and divert resources away from their people but it also true that more often than not, this has been done knowingly, with support from various nations due to their own “national interests”, especially during the Cold War.
SAPs are based on a narrow economic model that perpetuates poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation. Every rich nation today has become developed because in the past their governments took a major responsibility to promote economic growth through protectionism and interventionist measures. There was an attempt to provide some sort of equality, education, health and other services to help enhance the nation. But on the contrary the SAPs force developing countries to cut back on the very same provisions that helps the developed countries to prosper in the past. Europe is a good example of this. While the phrase “Welfare State” probably conjures up negative images, with regards to globalisation, it is realised by the European communities that protecting their people when developing hep societies, economies and cultures to thrive. Forcing developing countries t compete with industrialised nations before their foundations are stable has been and continues to be economic suicide. As a result of this heavy criticism, the IMF have attempted to change the SAPs and “re-launch” it under various brands which sound slightly more moral and passionate to humanity such as the Enhance Structural Adjustment facility (ESAF), the Poverty Reduction Growth Facility(PRGP), the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP). The effect is still the same. Poverty and inequality continue to increase at alarming rates.
“DEBT is an efficient tool. It ensures access to other people’s raw materials and infrastructure on the cheapest possible terms. Dozens of countries must compete for shrinking export markets and can export only a limited range of products because of Northern protectionism and their lack of cash to invest in diversification. Market saturation ensues, reducing exporters’ income to a bare minimum while the North enjoys huge savings. The IMF cannot seem to understand that investing in (a) healthy, well-fed, literate population is the most intelligent economic choice a country can make.” Susan George in A fate Worse Than Debt.
Many developing countries are in poverty partly due to the money-lending programmes by institutions such as the IMF and World Bank. Their programme have been heavily criticised for many years for resulting in an increased dependency by the developing countries upon the richer nations.
The IMF imposes its Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) to ensure debt repayment n such a way that social spending must be cut back. In effect, it demands poor nations to lower the standards of living of their masses. Under a plan devised by President Reagan’s Secretary to the Treasury, James Baker, indebted countries were offered ‘servicing’ loans in return for the ‘structural adjustment’ of their economies. This meant that the economic direction of each country would be planned, monitored and controlled in Washington. ‘Liberal containment’ was replaced by the Laissez-faire capitalism.
A lot of poverty we see around the worlds is related to the way global markets and trading practices are structures and how they have been shaped in previous years. In order to remain attractive to foreign investors, the IMF prescribes cutbacks. These factors lead to further misery fir developing nations and keep them dependent on developed nations. The SAPs also mean that these countries must export more in order to raise enough money to pay-off debts. Because there are so many nations being asked or forced into the global market place before they are economically and socially ready, it is like a big price war. The resources then become even cheaper from the poorer regions. Governments then need to further increase exports just to keep their currencies stable. They therefore must spend less, reduce consumption, remove or decrease financial regulations and devalue the national currency. Over time, the value of labour decreases, capital flows become more volatile and we get into a spiralling race to the bottom. These nations are then told to peg their currencies to the dollar. But keeping the exchange rate stable is costly due to increased interest rates. Investors obviously concerned about their assets pull out. In worst cases, capita flights can lead to economic collapse le we have seen in the Asian crises of 1997/8.
Of course, the blame by mainstream freemarketeers is laid on emerging markets and their governments’ restrictive or inefficient practices, crony capitalism etc, which is cruel irony. Keeping exchange rates in their favour, courtesy of the IMF and donors, means that the poor nations get even poorer. This is one of the backbones to today’s so-called “Free” trade. In this form it is seen as an unfair, one-way extractive game.
One of the many things the Bretton Woods twins [prescribe is that the developing nations should open up to allow more imports in an exports more of their commodities. However, this is precisely what contributes to poverty and dependency. If a society spends $100 to manufacture a product locally, the money that is used to buy materials, employ labour moves trough the economy as each recipient spends it. Due to this multiplies effect, $100 worth of primary products can add several hundreds dollars to the GNP of that country. If money is spent in another country, the multiplier takes effect in the other country. This is the reason an industrialised product-exporting country is wealthier than an undeveloped product-importing commodity exporting country is poor. Developed countries grow rich by selling capital-intensive (cheap) products for a high price and buying labour-intensive (expensive) products for a low price. This imbalance of trade expands the gap between the rich and the poor. This maintains the monopolisation of the tools of production, and assures a continued market for the product.
This model of development, whereby the North imposes their conditions on the South has come under criticism by many NGOs. True, in some cases corrupt governments have borrowed money from these institutions and ended up using that money to pursue selfish interests, conflicts, arms deals and divert resources away from their people but it also true that more often than not, this has been done knowingly, with support from various nations due to their own “national interests”, especially during the Cold War.
SAPs are based on a narrow economic model that perpetuates poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation. Every rich nation today has become developed because in the past their governments took a major responsibility to promote economic growth through protectionism and interventionist measures. There was an attempt to provide some sort of equality, education, health and other services to help enhance the nation. But on the contrary the SAPs force developing countries to cut back on the very same provisions that helps the developed countries to prosper in the past. Europe is a good example of this. While the phrase “Welfare State” probably conjures up negative images, with regards to globalisation, it is realised by the European communities that protecting their people when developing hep societies, economies and cultures to thrive. Forcing developing countries t compete with industrialised nations before their foundations are stable has been and continues to be economic suicide. As a result of this heavy criticism, the IMF have attempted to change the SAPs and “re-launch” it under various brands which sound slightly more moral and passionate to humanity such as the Enhance Structural Adjustment facility (ESAF), the Poverty Reduction Growth Facility(PRGP), the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP). The effect is still the same. Poverty and inequality continue to increase at alarming rates.
AFRICA LACKS IMAGINATION AND WILLPOWER
AFRICA LACKS IMAGINATION AND WILLPOWER
By:
Shreya Shah
A paragraph of the American Constitution reads “We should always work hard in order to be free and so that this liberty can be passed on to our children…” This document was written almost 3 centuries ago by American patriots and not one of them probably imagined that the United States Of America would one day occupy such a prominent place in the our World. But they well understood that just the will to work hard is sufficient to create prosperity and freedom and to be able to choose their future.
Today, too many nations still struggle to alleviate poverty. With a lack of resources and imagination, they seek help from all sorts of international institutions. After the 2nd World War, the Marshall Plan made possible the reconstruction of Europe. But we Africans have witnessed that financial assistance from the West has further worsened our economies and plunged the continent into an evil spiral of dependency and poverty. We ought to wake up and stop being so naïve: these institutions work on capitalist imperatives and are after nothing but profit. It is now up to us Africans to defend out interests.
There is something terribly amiss when in parts of Africa, it rains day and night and yet there is widespread famine whereas Australia, despite experiencing a drought for 7 years, manages to dish out relief food to the very same starving Africans and even export the surplus!
African governments must learn from their mistakes. Countries that were worse off than us at the time of independence have overtaken us economically and socially. They have successfully managed to confine poverty to reasonable limits. This is the case in South Korea, a country that has managed to wisely and successfully to become prosperous economically, all because of sound socio-economic policies. Unfortunately, in Africa certain dogmatic attitudes hinder this kind of prosperity.
In fact, it is often treated as a guinea pig by outsiders who coin our conceptions and encourage a sense of pessimism. And what do our African economist do? They sit back and help spread this Afro pessimism across the Western media.
A big mistake made by most African countries is to give too much attention to the Industrialised world for the simple reason of hoping to secure some “aid” without realising that we are poor because of these of these very same handouts. Yes. Developed countries can lend us all the money they want but they cannot help us develop. If that were the case, how can one explain the fact that almost 40 years after independence and a lot of co-operation, not a single country is developed enough to be qualify as a developed country?
When looking for employment, during an interview, an American will ask you what skills do you possess, a French will ask you What qualifications you have? and an African? The latter will ask you Who sent you? or who recommended you for this job? This attitude explains among other things, the gross inefficiency in our public services- an evil that bridles our progress.
By:
Shreya Shah
A paragraph of the American Constitution reads “We should always work hard in order to be free and so that this liberty can be passed on to our children…” This document was written almost 3 centuries ago by American patriots and not one of them probably imagined that the United States Of America would one day occupy such a prominent place in the our World. But they well understood that just the will to work hard is sufficient to create prosperity and freedom and to be able to choose their future.
Today, too many nations still struggle to alleviate poverty. With a lack of resources and imagination, they seek help from all sorts of international institutions. After the 2nd World War, the Marshall Plan made possible the reconstruction of Europe. But we Africans have witnessed that financial assistance from the West has further worsened our economies and plunged the continent into an evil spiral of dependency and poverty. We ought to wake up and stop being so naïve: these institutions work on capitalist imperatives and are after nothing but profit. It is now up to us Africans to defend out interests.
There is something terribly amiss when in parts of Africa, it rains day and night and yet there is widespread famine whereas Australia, despite experiencing a drought for 7 years, manages to dish out relief food to the very same starving Africans and even export the surplus!
African governments must learn from their mistakes. Countries that were worse off than us at the time of independence have overtaken us economically and socially. They have successfully managed to confine poverty to reasonable limits. This is the case in South Korea, a country that has managed to wisely and successfully to become prosperous economically, all because of sound socio-economic policies. Unfortunately, in Africa certain dogmatic attitudes hinder this kind of prosperity.
In fact, it is often treated as a guinea pig by outsiders who coin our conceptions and encourage a sense of pessimism. And what do our African economist do? They sit back and help spread this Afro pessimism across the Western media.
A big mistake made by most African countries is to give too much attention to the Industrialised world for the simple reason of hoping to secure some “aid” without realising that we are poor because of these of these very same handouts. Yes. Developed countries can lend us all the money they want but they cannot help us develop. If that were the case, how can one explain the fact that almost 40 years after independence and a lot of co-operation, not a single country is developed enough to be qualify as a developed country?
When looking for employment, during an interview, an American will ask you what skills do you possess, a French will ask you What qualifications you have? and an African? The latter will ask you Who sent you? or who recommended you for this job? This attitude explains among other things, the gross inefficiency in our public services- an evil that bridles our progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)