Poor country development - the Big Debate

[Brainaddict]

Jesus H fucking Christ, is it obligatory for anyone writing a lefty article to make it sound like Marx-lite or some public speaker haranguing people? Some good points lost under a barrage of rhetoric...

I concur comrade. Sen is always interesting though - perhaps I ought to steal the book from somewhere.

 

[slaar]

I currently work for an African government, so I've got a slightly different perspective hopefully to offer. People in power here actually complain that too much aid money is being put into the social sector (health, education etc) and not nearly enough into economic development.

I don't agree, not here anyway, but then I don't really believe that aid is that influential in driving economic development. But there's a reason why people think in economic terms. When you look at places around the world that have really raised living standards, they have done it largely through economic means, either solely through government (Soviet Union) or through some combination of capitalism and effective government (UK, US, Germany, Japan, China etc) and also through their own initiative, often against the odds. This has often meant capitalist development, but can you blame people, when they see the living standards in the UK or Scandinavia?

Ironically, developed countries often have much better environments than poor countries (if you saw the slash and burn agriculture prevalent here, or the chopping down of trees for firewood you would be appalled). But it's while the industrial transformation is going on that the real problems are.

Also, ironically, elites in many countries don't have the incentives to drive national development, as they're quite happy being personally rich in public squalor, overseeing natural resource rents and stealing aid money. The process by which broader development occurs is still not particularly well understood but it's surprisingly difficult given underlying political and social constraints as well as barriers but up by countries ahead of the game.

The worst situation is economic stagnation and environmental degradation. But there's nothing guaranteeing that a society will develop along any lines, let alone reasonably humane and environmentally conscious ones.

Meanwhile the countries that have 'succeeded' in the development game are completely dependent on exports for growth - creating a hideously inefficient and environmentally destructive international system where goods that could quite easily be made locally are ferried around the world - and as markets liberalise further in the next few years this trend is set to increase.

All countries that have got rich have been dependent on exports for a while, for the simple reason that that's where the markets are. Although you seem to need a decent, well managed period of import protection and trade barriers along the way. It was true in the 19th century and it's true now. As countries get richer there internal markets develop more and they become less dependent on exports. You're right that it is a risk, but development as typically practiced is risky.

 

[kyser_soze]

So Slaar would you say that in some ways many countries are in a frozen phase state between a form of feudalism and capitalism, and that development in ANY direction - socialistic or capitalistic - would cause problems for the local elites, and so it's not in their interests to develop in any direction?

 

[slaar]

So Slaar would you say that in some ways many countries are in a frozen phase state between a form of feudalism and capitalism, and that development in ANY direction - socialistic or capitalistic - would cause problems for the local elites, and so it's not in their interests to develop in any direction?

Yes, that reflects it quite well I think. And it's really not pretty.

You have outside interests making development more difficult (mining companies, structural adjustment etc), but I think the domestic constraints interact very strongly with the external (so for example natural resources earn a few people in the country vast amounts of money, so they will support things like big IMF and World Bank loans that aren't productive and hamstring economies that don't grow)...

One problem is that aid agencies are constantly preaching things like "end of poverty" and when this doesn't happen, as it won't in many countries for a while even with perfect conditions, people get frustrated and angry, unsurprisingly. Aid agencies are like a sticking plaster, they're getting better and helping a lot of people in the short run, although clearly they can't help everyone. I'll probably work for one quite soon as I think it's preferable to working for, say, a bank, but they're not the solution in the long run, in which they can even be counter-productive by fostering dependency.

 

[Fruitloop]

It's probably worth re-quoting Bernie G's figures for sustainable living vs population. I think it's about 1 billion at current US energy-consumption levels, or 2 billion at European levels. The best will in the world will not be able to raise 6, 7, 8 billion to present western levels of energy consumption without creating a global disaster.

 

[slaar]

It's probably worth re-quoting Bernie G's figures for sustainable living vs population. I think it's about 1 billion at current US energy-consumption levels, or 2 billion at European levels. The best will in the world will not be able to raise 6, 7, 8 billion to present western levels of energy consumption without creating a global disaster.

People seem to be quite good at working out solutions to problems when they threaten their existence, so I have faith that a lot of the environmental and energy problems will ultimately be solved. But it is faith, and a lot of damage is already being done.

 

[Fruitloop]

I have absolutely no faith that the present and ever-expanding world population can attain the same level of energy consumption as us or the yanqui, without a fuckup of gargantuan proportions - it's just not possible. To ignore it I think runs the risk of giving with one hand and taking with the other (a load more people in China get to sit in traffic jams, as an equal number of Pacific Islanders are simply washed out to sea), or that the resource scarcity/environmental effects simply undo the gains that were made by the development in the first place, through displacement, crop failure etc etc.

 

[kyser_soze]

I try not to have faith - but I do have hope. There is a very important phrase you use there Fruitloop - 'current levels of energy consumption'. The US has a lot of easy gains to be made there, and Europe is the same. While I know that Garfield and others don't like it and fall into the 'make business cut back first' group, simply improving domestic energy efficiency in the UK and Europe, as well as raising recycling levels, in combination with a real commitment to developing sustainable energy production - such as altering the planning process for windfarms so that the 9GW that's currently sitting waiting for permission or for the NIMBYs to stop them can actually start being built.

Someone said it on another thread about how basically we need to go back to a war footing...pretty close, but before it gets that dramatic there are still a number of quick wins to be had.

The aim therefore should be to get the world developed while avoiding fossil fuel use where possible - I don't want anyone accusing me of being an eco-imperialist! But surely any technologies that are developed that lessen the need to utilise fossil fuels should be embraced...

 

[slaar]

Right, hopefully we won't need the same levels of energy consumption. If people do keep on demanding more and more energy there will be major trouble, I don't doubt that.

Incidentally the UK seems to be setting the pace on legal constructs to get emissions down 60% by 2050, which is no small thing.

 

[Brainaddict]

People seem to be quite good at working out solutions to problems when they threaten their existence, so I have faith that a lot of the environmental and energy problems will ultimately be solved. But it is faith

This is the current UK government position - essentially that the market will sort it out. And it may do in the rich countries, because we've got the resources to adjust, but I think the poor countries will be left out in the cold for a while - and the more oil-dependent they become now, the more they'll suffer.

 

[Fruitloop]

As usual I'm substantially more pessimistic than you guys - must be something in the water. I don't think that you can conceivably squeeze the environmental footprint of the developed nations enough to allow for the billions of extra people who want the same stuff, leaving aside the profound unwillingness of some of the developed nations to do anything of the sort - not suprisingly, since they are predicating their future welfare and the ability to ameliorate the conditions of their still-existing poor on the growth of their own economies.

What it amounts to is betting the whole farm on development - development will reduce pollution, development will bring down birth rates, development will bring political emancipation. I think this is a dodgy bet for two reasons - firstly that the timescale is too short, and a lot of the negative impacts will have already kicked in making the whole thing an uphill struggle, and secondly that there is far more difference between developed and undeveloped nations that just their state of development, in terms of the balance of power, society, etc, so to assume that by changing just one variable you get all the other results that you want is not a sufficiently likely proposition to justify putting all the eggs in that particular basket .

 

[littlebabyjesus]

One of the lessons I learned when I lived in Cuba was that the presence of rich foreigners showing off their shiny technology on the whole made Cubans more unhappy with their lot.

Another problem with other countries 'developing' in the Western consumerist sense is that it could be an ecological disaster. The average Cuban city-dweller – with their goats and pigs in the yard, their diets of seasonal fruit and veg, their scrupulous recycling of anything plastic, their 'care for and mend' attitude towards any valuable possession – can teach us a lot about how we all should live.

The question isn't just 'how can they become more like us' but also 'how can we become more like them'.

 

[fela fan]

This is for another thread but thanks for telling me how I think. Always good to know that someone has been able to psychoanalyse me via postings on a message board.

I can't help but point out that this is what you've done to me for a long time now. I have no complaints, and it's irrelevant to this thread. I hope to contribute some when i read it again more sober.

Just wanted to point that wee fact out!

 

[Fruitloop]

Now now children, play nice. Kyser and I agreed to have that particular bun-fight elsewhere so as not to derail Brainaddicts rather excellent thread.

 

[kyser_soze]

No fela, I've never psychoanalysed you from the board, I've merely been able to predict what you are about to say and argue from your previous posts. I've never attempted to psychoanalyse you as a person - never mentioned you being an expat or anything else in your personal/professional life. I've never told you the kind of person you are, merely pointed out on a number of occassions where the holes in your thinking and evidentiary requirements are.

E2A - Good point Fruits

Another problem with other countries 'developing' in the Western consumerist sense is that it could be an ecological disaster. The average Cuban city-dweller – with their goats and pigs in the yard, their diets of seasonal fruit and veg, their scrupulous recycling of anything plastic, their 'care for and mend' attitude towards any valuable possession – can teach us a lot about how we all should live.

Leaving aside the goats in the yard bit, this is actually how most people of my nan's generation lived, before, during and after the war - indeed, if she's anything to go by it was the 1970s that was the turning point when it came to parsimonious living, especially for the w/c in the UK since that's the point she usually identifies as when 'everything started to break, you couldn't get repairs easily and people just said 'I'll buy a replacement'', so it's as much a case of 'how can we go back to how we were?'

One of the lessons I learned when I lived in Cuba was that the presence of rich foreigners showing off their shiny technology on the whole made Cubans more unhappy with their lot.

There's a great quote from Dolly Parton about this:

'It wasn't until someone told me that I realised that I was poor when I grew up.'

Also ties in with the article I mentioned earlier about the peeps in the Indian slum which has an economy of $700mn PA...they get told that they are in poverty a lot apparently...

 

[Brainaddict]

When you look at places around the world that have really raised living standards, they have done it largely through economic means, either solely through government (Soviet Union) or through some combination of capitalism and effective government (UK, US, Germany, Japan, China etc) and also through their own initiative, often against the odds. This has often meant capitalist development, but can you blame people, when they see the living standards in the UK or Scandinavia?

I think we're talking about slightly different things here when we're talking about 'social' stuff. I was seeing all that 'standard of living' stuff, including healthcare and the like, under the economic banner - since I take it as given that it's almost impossible to improve those things without money. What I meant was more the fact that what gets ignored in development is the social structures (traditional or otherwise). Changing the economy to make it more like Western Europe or whatever completely changes the way that people relate to each other and how they interact with, say, the idea of work, and very little attention gets paid to this kind of thing. There's very little recognition of the fact that buying into someone else's economic system will completely change your culture - not necessarily for the better. Likewise with the adoption of Western education - within a generation whole ways of seeing the world and systems of behaviour can disappear. And no one seems concerned about this - because it's the economic growth that matters and you've got to have an educated population to get growth.

 

[Fruitloop]

I find myself in the scary position of echoing phildwyer's sentiments - that to separate out economics as a distinct sphere of social life is to already import a piece of Western ideological baggage.

 

[Brainaddict]

I find myself in the scary position of echoing phildwyer's sentiments - that to separate out economics as a distinct sphere of social life is to already import a piece of Western ideological baggage.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

 

[kyser_soze]

What I meant was more the fact that what gets ignored in development is the social structures (traditional or otherwise). Changing the economy to make it more like Western Europe or whatever completely changes the way that people relate to each other and how they interact with, say, the idea of work, and very little attention gets paid to this kind of thing. There's very little recognition of the fact that buying into someone else's economic system will completely change your culture - not necessarily for the better. Likewise with the adoption of Western education - within a generation whole ways of seeing the world and systems of behaviour can disappear. And no one seems concerned about this - because it's the economic growth that matters and you've got to have an educated population to get growth.

Same happened in the West tho, with the idealisation (is that a word) of the nuclear family unit over the extended family.

Cuba managed to develop it's healthcare with fuck all money and now exports Drs all around the world - altho even that was developed under the aegis of the Soviet Union so that argument doesn't work...

I think we're really close on a lot of stuff here - point about relativism taken as well Fruits - since the memes of the Western European enlightenment, as well as those of Industrialising Europe are now spread and embedded the world over I really don't know how you get round it without turning the non-conflicting parts of local cultures into little more than tourist shows.

I mean, 'universal' human rights does imply a degree of global hemogeneity around a core set of ideas doesn't it? Ideas that many cultures around the world don't subscribe to at ANY level...

 

[Fruitloop]

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

I'm agreeing, dammit!

 

[fela fan]

No fela, I've never psychoanalysed you from the board, I've merely been able to predict what you are about to say and argue from your previous posts. I've never attempted to psychoanalyse you as a person - never mentioned you being an expat or anything else in your personal/professional life. I've never told you the kind of person you are, merely pointed out on a number of occassions where the holes in your thinking and evidentiary requirements are.

Maybe the beer is clouding my judgement...

But you've got it wrong, as well as right. You've certainly told me who i am and got it wrong before. Simply based on what i say and what you predict i'm gonna say. It's probably been a case of language understandings more than anything else.

But i should really come back to this thread and try and add something useful...

I'm not an expat, so i'm glad you've not told me i am! That has a lot of connotations that simply are not me.

The holes in my thinking could be holes, or they could be perceived holes...

 

[kyser_soze]

fela, you ARE an expat. You are expatriated from your home country to another. That's what the word means...

 

[slaar]

I think we're talking about slightly different things here when we're talking about 'social' stuff. I was seeing all that 'standard of living' stuff, including healthcare and the like, under the economic banner - since I take it as given that it's almost impossible to improve those things without money. What I meant was more the fact that what gets ignored in development is the social structures (traditional or otherwise). Changing the economy to make it more like Western Europe or whatever completely changes the way that people relate to each other and how they interact with, say, the idea of work, and very little attention gets paid to this kind of thing. There's very little recognition of the fact that buying into someone else's economic system will completely change your culture - not necessarily for the better. Likewise with the adoption of Western education - within a generation whole ways of seeing the world and systems of behaviour can disappear. And no one seems concerned about this - because it's the economic growth that matters and you've got to have an educated population to get growth.

Got it. Sorry I misunderstood, it's partly the economist in me coming out, but also because any concept of "development" of social structures is much more dubious than, for example, lengthened life spans, which most people would see as desirable.

In fact I don't even know how an aid agency would begin to approach those issues?

The question of whether the breakdown in traditional relations, which have many advantages but also disadvantages (strongly reinforce patronage systems for example) is worth the extra material benefits. And that should be down to individual people and peoples to decide, as difficult as that is to achieve in practice.

 

[fela fan]

fela, you ARE an expat. You are expatriated from your home country to another. That's what the word means...

So, having never told me i'm an expat, you now are!!

No, i'm not. If you wish to insist on a dictionary definition, then even then you're still wrong. But i did mention the connotations of being one.

You used the verb, and i did not do that. I went travelling with the expectation of coming back to england. I happenend to not do that. An expat is one who left his/her country to go live and work in another.

And then they conform to certain patterns and behaviour. I do nothing of the sort.

If i did, i'd be a rich bastard for a start.

If anything i'm a non-returning traveller.

This is another example of you misdiagnosing who i am.

 

[Brainaddict]

And that should be down to individual people and peoples to decide, as difficult as that is to achieve in practice.

I guess I do have a dilemma here, in that I don't think people always know what they are buying into when they try to industrialise etc, so to some degree I don't trust their individual choices. But the alternative of me telling them what the best kind of development would be is also somewhat problematic

I just think it's a real shame when people get engaged in the economic 'development' process without understanding what it's going to do to their society - and I realise their are some positive changes as well as negative, but most people, from the government ministers right down to the chai-wallah rarely take any notice of these 'side-effects' at all - until they start complaining that family/community/whatever isn't what it used to be, and by then it's too late.

 

[fela fan]

The question isn't just 'how can they become more like us' but also 'how can we become more like them'.

And that indeed is a great question!

It reminds me of the man who wanted a synthesis of the best of the west and the best of the east...

Certainly we'd have to get rid of western arrogance, and eastern self-flagellation...

 

[slaar]

I guess I do have a dilemma here, in that I don't think people always know what they are buying into when they try to industrialise etc, so to some degree I don't trust their individual choices. But the alternative of me telling them what the best kind of development would be is also somewhat problematic

I just think it's a real shame when people get engaged in the economic 'development' process without understanding what it's going to do to their society - and I realise their are some positive changes as well as negative, but most people, from the government ministers right down to the chai-wallah rarely take any notice of these 'side-effects' at all - until they start complaining that family/community/whatever isn't what it used to be, and by then it's too late.

"A Klee painting named 'Angelus Novus' shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned towards the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from paradise; it has got caught in its wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. This storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress."

Walter Benjamin

Aye. But a strong element in me wants this to happen, to see what we can do. I don't buy the "traditional societies are happy and peaceful whilst we are unhappy and violent" lne of thought.

 

[Fruitloop]

In that sense maybe I'm more of a hopeless optimist than you guys, in that I think it is possible to have material advancement without the accompanying alienation. Not via the Washington Consensus though.

 

[Brainaddict]

I don't buy the "traditional societies are happy and peaceful whilst we are unhappy and violent" lne of thought.

Nor do I - in fact I would go as far as to say that most traditional societies were very oppressive in one way or another - but I think a judicious balancing of the two, learning from both ways of doing things, would be a good way forward.

 

[slaar]

In that sense maybe I'm more of a hopeless optimist than you guys, in that I think it is possible to have material advancement without the accompanying alienation. Not via the Washington Consensus though.

That certainly is more optimistic. I would love that to be true. I'm with you all the way on the Washington Consensus though.