Why is Zambia so poor?
September 13, 2013 5:07 PM Subscribe
Why is Zambia so poor?
"I’m not going to tell Zambia how to run itself, what it needs to fix and in what order. The explanations I heard, they aren’t the whole puzzle, they aren’t even the biggest pieces. The only thing I’m able to conclude after my trip here is that it’s incredibly difficult for a poor country to go about getting un-poor. Just when you think you’ve got the right narrative, another one comes bursting out of the footnotes. It’s the informality. No, it’s the taxes. No, it’s the mining companies. No, it’s the regulators.
And that’s what makes fixing it so difficult."
This landlocked country in Sub-Saharan Africa isn’t a failed state in the traditional sense: There’s no dictator, no child soldiers. But most of its 14 million people live on less than $1 per day. How did things get this way, and can they ever get better?
"I’m not going to tell Zambia how to run itself, what it needs to fix and in what order. The explanations I heard, they aren’t the whole puzzle, they aren’t even the biggest pieces. The only thing I’m able to conclude after my trip here is that it’s incredibly difficult for a poor country to go about getting un-poor. Just when you think you’ve got the right narrative, another one comes bursting out of the footnotes. It’s the informality. No, it’s the taxes. No, it’s the mining companies. No, it’s the regulators.
And that’s what makes fixing it so difficult."
This landlocked country in Sub-Saharan Africa isn’t a failed state in the traditional sense: There’s no dictator, no child soldiers. But most of its 14 million people live on less than $1 per day. How did things get this way, and can they ever get better?
"Why is the United States so rich?"
"Why is Haiti so poor?"
"Why is France so rich?"
"Why is Mozambique so poor?"
"Why is Germany so rich?
"Why is Belize so poor?"
"Why is Luxembourg so rich?"
"Why is Vietnam so poor?"
"Why is Norway so rich?"
"Why is Somalia so poor?"
"Why is Thailand so rich?"
"Why is Bangladesh so poor?"
Why is this an acceptable narrative for framing the history and development of arbitrary countries and nationstates?
posted by oceanjesse at 5:43 PM on September 13, 2013
"Why is Haiti so poor?"
"Why is France so rich?"
"Why is Mozambique so poor?"
"Why is Germany so rich?
"Why is Belize so poor?"
"Why is Luxembourg so rich?"
"Why is Vietnam so poor?"
"Why is Norway so rich?"
"Why is Somalia so poor?"
"Why is Thailand so rich?"
"Why is Bangladesh so poor?"
Why is this an acceptable narrative for framing the history and development of arbitrary countries and nationstates?
posted by oceanjesse at 5:43 PM on September 13, 2013
From the article: one Zambian's thoughts on what causes poverty in her city. It's you.
We are talking about poverty here in Kitwe, what it looks like, what causes it.posted by cairdeas at 5:45 PM on September 13, 2013 [17 favorites]
“It’s you,” she says.
“… White people?” I ask.
“No, you men,” she says. “The men here are jealous of women’s earnings and education, and block them from getting employment.”
In rural areas, women do most of the farming, but the men are the ones who go to the market, sell the crops, pocket the money. Before they even get home, many of those kwachas have already disappeared into beer, sunglasses, and brand names. The wives have to resort to asking nicely for money for school fees, medicines, next season’s seeds and fertilizers.
The author has neatly laid the article out into six sections, each addressing an issue in Zambia: mines, culture, land, skills, politicians, corruption. He ends by saying,
posted by cairdeas at 5:52 PM on September 13, 2013 [13 favorites]
"And that’s what makes fixing it so difficult. Does Zambia need better schools? Debt relief? Microfinance? Nicer mining companies? Better laws? Stronger enforcement? Yes. All of them. And all at the same time.It's a very interesting article that makes very interesting points and we'd do well to actually talk about the article.
You can’t fix the land issues without tackling the corruption. You can’t fix the corruption without tackling the politics. You can’t fix the politics without addressing the culture.
posted by cairdeas at 5:52 PM on September 13, 2013 [13 favorites]
I spent five weeks in zambia this past spring, and I'm going to be there for 5-6 months this winter, and I cannot add anything that isn't in this very good article. Thanks for sharing!
posted by cmyr at 5:53 PM on September 13, 2013
posted by cmyr at 5:53 PM on September 13, 2013
I didn't realize that Vice had changed its name to Pacific Standard. Utter mess of an article. How could the author not know how Zambians EAT? Wouldn't that be one thing to prepare for?
posted by ethnomethodologist at 5:56 PM on September 13, 2013
posted by ethnomethodologist at 5:56 PM on September 13, 2013
"Why is Haiti so poor?"
"Why is France so rich?"
These are not unrelated questions.
posted by George_Spiggott at 6:07 PM on September 13, 2013 [24 favorites]
"Why is France so rich?"
These are not unrelated questions.
posted by George_Spiggott at 6:07 PM on September 13, 2013 [24 favorites]
"Improving our country for us, are you? Railways, roads, mines, indeed! For whose benefit are they? You can take them all away so far as I'm concerned. What are you leaving us with? A sucked orange!"
- Zambian chief, late 1930s (as quoted in Bill Rau's excellent 1991 book, From Feast to Famine: Official Cures and Grassroots Remedies to Africa's Food Crisis)
posted by spamandkimchi at 6:12 PM on September 13, 2013 [4 favorites]
- Zambian chief, late 1930s (as quoted in Bill Rau's excellent 1991 book, From Feast to Famine: Official Cures and Grassroots Remedies to Africa's Food Crisis)
posted by spamandkimchi at 6:12 PM on September 13, 2013 [4 favorites]
Perhaps the answer is that it's a landlocked country in Sub-Saharan Africa?
You mean like Botswana, one of the richest countries in Africa?
posted by carfilhiot at 6:13 PM on September 13, 2013 [4 favorites]
You mean like Botswana, one of the richest countries in Africa?
posted by carfilhiot at 6:13 PM on September 13, 2013 [4 favorites]
Rau also wrote about how the World Bank, a prime proponent of comparative advantage, gave loans to Zambia to start a coffee industry, nevermind that Zambia's experience with world copper prices underscored the perils of an economy based on commodity exports, and nevermind that plenty of other nearby nations already had well-established coffee industries.
posted by spamandkimchi at 6:15 PM on September 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by spamandkimchi at 6:15 PM on September 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Pacific Standard is worth getting a subscription to, right?
posted by Apocryphon at 6:19 PM on September 13, 2013
posted by Apocryphon at 6:19 PM on September 13, 2013
This is very reminiscent of the Tanzania chapter of P.J. O'Rourke's Eat The Rich, which is a very interesting and funny book.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:21 PM on September 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:21 PM on September 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Also I wish everyone writing about Africa would read James Ferguson's The Anti-Politics Machine: “Development,” Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho (there's a summary article of the book as well) and Timothy Mitchell's "America’s Egypt: Discourse of the Development Industry."
International aid industry experts rely on images of impoverished subsistence farmers “just entering the modern era” and “virtually untouched by modern economic development” as justification for technocratic solutions.
When asked for advice, Ferguson suggested to a development expert that his nation contemplate sanctions against apartheid (as a way to help Lesotho). “[T]he man replied, ‘No, no! I mean development!’ The only advice accepted is about how to ‘do development’ better. There is a ready ear for criticisms of ‘bad development projects’, only so long as these are followed up with calls for ‘good development projects’.” (Ferguson, 181)
posted by spamandkimchi at 6:28 PM on September 13, 2013 [5 favorites]
International aid industry experts rely on images of impoverished subsistence farmers “just entering the modern era” and “virtually untouched by modern economic development” as justification for technocratic solutions.
When asked for advice, Ferguson suggested to a development expert that his nation contemplate sanctions against apartheid (as a way to help Lesotho). “[T]he man replied, ‘No, no! I mean development!’ The only advice accepted is about how to ‘do development’ better. There is a ready ear for criticisms of ‘bad development projects’, only so long as these are followed up with calls for ‘good development projects’.” (Ferguson, 181)
posted by spamandkimchi at 6:28 PM on September 13, 2013 [5 favorites]
Why is this an acceptable narrative for framing the history and development of arbitrary countries and nationstates?
Because it's an accepted shorthand way of discussing the conditions that have resulted in some human beings having all their needs met, and many other human beings having to struggle to achieve basic sustenance and shelter and often fail?
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:18 PM on September 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
Because it's an accepted shorthand way of discussing the conditions that have resulted in some human beings having all their needs met, and many other human beings having to struggle to achieve basic sustenance and shelter and often fail?
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:18 PM on September 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
Every single country is different - that's a truism. Including in Africa - no two countries are alike. Someone upthread mentioned Botswana as a fairly successful - also landlocked country. Just because there are differences between countries, their histories and cultures, doesn't mean that there are no lessons to be extracted from examining what might predispose to success and what would be a hindrance.
Some time ago I read a very interesting chapter in some book (the title of which I don't remember, unfortunately), which compared the economies of various countries across time. In particular, I found the case of Argentina fascinating. Argentina never experienced the devastation of WWII. Many other countries after WWII were in a substantially worse position economically. And yet, over the following decades, Argentina first stagnated, and then declined, while those who were devastated by WWII, gradually outgrew Argentina's economy and continued with much success.
To me, that's a far more interesting question than why Zambia is in the shape that it's in. Nothing particularly bad happened to Argentina - there wasn't the same legacy of colonialism, resource extraction, undereducated population with staggering rates of illiteracy, unplugged from the world capital and intellectual resources (indeed, Argentine society was always had deep links to Europe). And yet. Now, Argentina is certainly better off than Zambia, but I think it does illustrate that there are a great many factors at play.
Ranging further, what allowed various Asian countries to rise from the depths of poverty that was comparable in scope, to reasonably advanced development? It was not an isolated case of one country, but a collection of them. What did they share? Yes, we know there are differences between Zambia and any one of them, but again, that's a truism about every country. Isn't there something to be learned from examining the history of development across countries the world over?
I certainly don't think I'm in a position to have any profound answers. I have none, really, though I do have a ton of questions. What I do have however, is a healthy skepticism about the answers that have been traditionally proffered by the likes of the world bank and imf.
I can see enough complexity, that I can see how inadequate the answers given so far are - including this article. We understand the condition - we can all see that Zambia is poor. What we don't have is any good idea how to fix it, an idea that's workable.
posted by VikingSword at 8:34 PM on September 13, 2013 [6 favorites]
Some time ago I read a very interesting chapter in some book (the title of which I don't remember, unfortunately), which compared the economies of various countries across time. In particular, I found the case of Argentina fascinating. Argentina never experienced the devastation of WWII. Many other countries after WWII were in a substantially worse position economically. And yet, over the following decades, Argentina first stagnated, and then declined, while those who were devastated by WWII, gradually outgrew Argentina's economy and continued with much success.
To me, that's a far more interesting question than why Zambia is in the shape that it's in. Nothing particularly bad happened to Argentina - there wasn't the same legacy of colonialism, resource extraction, undereducated population with staggering rates of illiteracy, unplugged from the world capital and intellectual resources (indeed, Argentine society was always had deep links to Europe). And yet. Now, Argentina is certainly better off than Zambia, but I think it does illustrate that there are a great many factors at play.
Ranging further, what allowed various Asian countries to rise from the depths of poverty that was comparable in scope, to reasonably advanced development? It was not an isolated case of one country, but a collection of them. What did they share? Yes, we know there are differences between Zambia and any one of them, but again, that's a truism about every country. Isn't there something to be learned from examining the history of development across countries the world over?
I certainly don't think I'm in a position to have any profound answers. I have none, really, though I do have a ton of questions. What I do have however, is a healthy skepticism about the answers that have been traditionally proffered by the likes of the world bank and imf.
I can see enough complexity, that I can see how inadequate the answers given so far are - including this article. We understand the condition - we can all see that Zambia is poor. What we don't have is any good idea how to fix it, an idea that's workable.
posted by VikingSword at 8:34 PM on September 13, 2013 [6 favorites]
Am I alone in thinking that if a country has a low corruption index, universal civil rights and is capable of feeding itself, that it doesn't need to be either rich or modern? Are there any happily low-tech countries in the world?
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:34 PM on September 13, 2013
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:34 PM on September 13, 2013
(Though modernity in some things, like medicine, is a pretty hard requirement for decent quality of life... and in order to get that you need foreign trade, so maybe with ten minutes' thought I could probably answer my own question.)
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:36 PM on September 13, 2013
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:36 PM on September 13, 2013
Are there any happily low-tech countries in the world?
Hmm... maybe Bhutan? I don't know how much you can generalize about political economy from the experience of a country that only developed a democracy because the king ordered them to, though.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 8:48 PM on September 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Hmm... maybe Bhutan? I don't know how much you can generalize about political economy from the experience of a country that only developed a democracy because the king ordered them to, though.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 8:48 PM on September 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's not an issue of being a virtuous "low tech" country and doing more with less - you need to raise per capita income in order to pay for improved agricultural productivity, education and healthcare, which in turn improve quality of life and longevity.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:55 PM on September 13, 2013
posted by KokuRyu at 8:55 PM on September 13, 2013
A week after I leave Lusaka, I meet a Zambian expat in Zimbabwe. She left Lusaka four years ago, and she says every time she returns, there are more cars, more roads, more restaurants, bars, gyms, decent cappuccinos. I tell her that in Lusaka I saw construction cranes on the horizon in every direction. "It's all malls," she says. "Zambians love to go to the goddamn mall."I spent a few weeks in the field in Zambia for a study on baboons, and our meals were either sardines, soy chunks, or something labelled "at least 40% meat." When we finally finished the study, bloodied and exhausted, we went to the Hungry Lion roast chicken restaurant in the upscale Manda Hill Shopping Center. I also love Zambia's goddam malls. I still dream about that meal.
posted by bergeycm at 9:12 PM on September 13, 2013 [4 favorites]
Am I alone in thinking that if a country has a low corruption index, universal civil rights and is capable of feeding itself, that it doesn't need to be either rich or modern?
Easy to say when you're in the west (I assume you are). Bit different when you're living it - these people just want what we take for granted, and fair enough I say.
posted by smoke at 11:02 PM on September 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
Easy to say when you're in the west (I assume you are). Bit different when you're living it - these people just want what we take for granted, and fair enough I say.
posted by smoke at 11:02 PM on September 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
"International aid industry experts rely on images of impoverished subsistence farmers “just entering the modern era” and “virtually untouched by modern economic development” as justification for technocratic solutions. "
That's a good point. That also flatters the supply side of international aid, which is too often used as a subsidy for domestic industries by having the government buy a whole bunch of corn/tractors/whatever and ship it off to people for whom it's not a great fit.
posted by klangklangston at 12:04 AM on September 14, 2013
That's a good point. That also flatters the supply side of international aid, which is too often used as a subsidy for domestic industries by having the government buy a whole bunch of corn/tractors/whatever and ship it off to people for whom it's not a great fit.
posted by klangklangston at 12:04 AM on September 14, 2013
"Am I alone in thinking that if a country has a low corruption index, universal civil rights and is capable of feeding itself, that it doesn't need to be either rich or modern? Are there any happily low-tech countries in the world?"
One of the problems is that, at least from one development point of view, that low corruption and universal civil rights exist is a sign of functional institutions, which tend to go along with being modern and developed (kinda tautologically, because having functional institutions is a marker of development).
But you might also have trouble with this on the True Scotsman side: What developed countries have universal civil rights? It depends on how you define them.
posted by klangklangston at 12:15 AM on September 14, 2013
One of the problems is that, at least from one development point of view, that low corruption and universal civil rights exist is a sign of functional institutions, which tend to go along with being modern and developed (kinda tautologically, because having functional institutions is a marker of development).
But you might also have trouble with this on the True Scotsman side: What developed countries have universal civil rights? It depends on how you define them.
posted by klangklangston at 12:15 AM on September 14, 2013
Am I alone in thinking that if a country has a low corruption index, universal civil rights and is capable of feeding itself, that it doesn't need to be either rich or modern? Are there any happily low-tech countries in the world?
Certainly not, but none of those three things are true of Zambia, very much the opposite. The title of the article is "Why is Zambia poor," not because it's a problem in and of itself to not be rich, but because "Why do 14% of Zambians have HIV, and 40% lack access to clean drinking water? Why are Zambians being so unfairly compensated for the extraction of their mineral resources? Why is there such an epidemic of domestic violence that many mines have their own domestic violence shelters? Why is it so difficult for human beings to buy the land they live on, and so easy for corporations to buy it and force them off of it? Why are there not enough workers to fill open, available professional jobs -- lack of skilled workers, or unlivably inadequate salary?" is way too long to be a headline.
posted by cairdeas at 12:17 AM on September 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Certainly not, but none of those three things are true of Zambia, very much the opposite. The title of the article is "Why is Zambia poor," not because it's a problem in and of itself to not be rich, but because "Why do 14% of Zambians have HIV, and 40% lack access to clean drinking water? Why are Zambians being so unfairly compensated for the extraction of their mineral resources? Why is there such an epidemic of domestic violence that many mines have their own domestic violence shelters? Why is it so difficult for human beings to buy the land they live on, and so easy for corporations to buy it and force them off of it? Why are there not enough workers to fill open, available professional jobs -- lack of skilled workers, or unlivably inadequate salary?" is way too long to be a headline.
posted by cairdeas at 12:17 AM on September 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Why is this an acceptable narrative for framing the history and development of arbitrary countries and nationstates?
Well, for one thing, none of those are actually narratives. They are conditions.
"Am I alone in thinking that if a country has a low corruption index, universal civil rights and is capable of feeding itself, that it doesn't need to be either rich or modern? Are there any happily low-tech countries in the world?"
Ah, now that's a narrative! Unfortunately, while it could be an interesting question, it reminds me uncomfortably of the Noble Savage trope of a past era.
That is, I think you're reading "rich or modern" as proxies for "degenerate Western ideas of civilization" best to be avoided. I don't think they actually are those things since they can, more or less, be objectively measured -- subsistence income, or miles of paved road per capita. What people do with their wealth or modernity, of course, is the real rub (and there's plenty of objective evidence that they can do vastly different things with them).
But in general I agree with klangklangston, who said better what I was already thinking -- that the essential component here is the rule of law, and that isn't something that tends to arrive alone or prevent progress on other fronts. If anything, they tend to exist hand in hand, and taking a page from de Soto, there is a general conclusion that wealthier societies are better able to provide for the majority of their citizens.
The problem in Zambia seems to be that the resource extraction, as in many such cases, results in rentier economics and resultant corruption at a very high level, particularly to the point of regulatory capture of state organs. I don't know that there are really exemplary cases of countries that control their resource wealth and siphon sufficient income to provide for a truly enviable society; in most cases they seem to just do OK at this. Some of the outliers at both ends are pretty unattractive -- the flip side of Zambia, for instance, might be Saudi Arabia.
posted by dhartung at 12:29 AM on September 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Well, for one thing, none of those are actually narratives. They are conditions.
"Am I alone in thinking that if a country has a low corruption index, universal civil rights and is capable of feeding itself, that it doesn't need to be either rich or modern? Are there any happily low-tech countries in the world?"
Ah, now that's a narrative! Unfortunately, while it could be an interesting question, it reminds me uncomfortably of the Noble Savage trope of a past era.
That is, I think you're reading "rich or modern" as proxies for "degenerate Western ideas of civilization" best to be avoided. I don't think they actually are those things since they can, more or less, be objectively measured -- subsistence income, or miles of paved road per capita. What people do with their wealth or modernity, of course, is the real rub (and there's plenty of objective evidence that they can do vastly different things with them).
But in general I agree with klangklangston, who said better what I was already thinking -- that the essential component here is the rule of law, and that isn't something that tends to arrive alone or prevent progress on other fronts. If anything, they tend to exist hand in hand, and taking a page from de Soto, there is a general conclusion that wealthier societies are better able to provide for the majority of their citizens.
The problem in Zambia seems to be that the resource extraction, as in many such cases, results in rentier economics and resultant corruption at a very high level, particularly to the point of regulatory capture of state organs. I don't know that there are really exemplary cases of countries that control their resource wealth and siphon sufficient income to provide for a truly enviable society; in most cases they seem to just do OK at this. Some of the outliers at both ends are pretty unattractive -- the flip side of Zambia, for instance, might be Saudi Arabia.
posted by dhartung at 12:29 AM on September 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
French girlfriend, 1978: "The Philippines? It is terreeble, the women do all the work and the men... the men, they sit under the coconut trees and stroke their cocks."
I think she was talking about cock fighting (birds).
posted by Mister Bijou at 12:32 AM on September 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I think she was talking about cock fighting (birds).
posted by Mister Bijou at 12:32 AM on September 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
spamandkimchi, I was just about to recommend one of James Ferguson's other books, Expectations of Modernity, a book that is about the collapse of said expectations following the crash of the copper market and the decline of the national copper industry in Zambia's Copperbelt.
The author of the article is to be commended for resisting easy solutions and explanations, but there were some odd notes about the article. Like ending with the bit about trophy hunting. Are we supposed to shudder in horror? Done well, trophy hunting can be good for both conservation and local livelihoods. (Although goodness knows, things like conservancy/community-based natural resource management have their critics.)
And I can't help thinking that what's missing is putting Zambia in international perspective. Why do we suppose that there is a way to make the country rich? Just because Sweden stopped being a poor agrarian nation and became a wealthy, post-industrialized knowledge economy (through some strange dance of social democracy and corporatism that I don't quite understand but do admire), just because Argentina managed to make itself wealthier, doesn't mean that Zambia will necessarily be able to do the same. It may be that rural Zambians are simply irrelevant to global systems of capital. They'll be the abject, external, ignored component of the sytem. It'd be like asking why some hollow in Appalachia can't turn itself into the San Fernando Valley.
What's needed are approaches that recognize this inequality and take steps to redress it--how about massively increased systems of redistribution across borders? For all we decry the shortfalls and shortcomings of international aid, all the transfers that have been made to Africa in the past 50 years actually amount to very little. As Henry Farrell pointed out a few years ago, "the implied complaint of the average Northerner to the average African can be translated 'I’ve been giving you 20 cents a week for years now, and you’re still poor – you must have squandered my generous help'."
But yes--do focus on governance of resource wealth. It would be much better if Zambia could turn its mineral wealth into lasting industrialization and improved conditions for their people (the same would go for that hollow in Appalachia, too). I'm not doubting that! Dhartung--a more instructive comparison may be with Zambia's neighbor Botswana, which seems to have managed to invest its mineral wealth much more cannily and strategically than many in the region.
Those interested in delving into these questions more deeply might want to check out Morton Jerven's recent book, Poor Numbers: How We Are Misled by African Development Statistics and What To Do About It. Jerven uses a history of Zambia's central statistics office as a case study of how the numbers we use to judge economic success and failure in Africa are often so very, very flawed. Which makes a solid comparative discussion difficult to have in the first place.
posted by col_pogo at 12:46 AM on September 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
The author of the article is to be commended for resisting easy solutions and explanations, but there were some odd notes about the article. Like ending with the bit about trophy hunting. Are we supposed to shudder in horror? Done well, trophy hunting can be good for both conservation and local livelihoods. (Although goodness knows, things like conservancy/community-based natural resource management have their critics.)
And I can't help thinking that what's missing is putting Zambia in international perspective. Why do we suppose that there is a way to make the country rich? Just because Sweden stopped being a poor agrarian nation and became a wealthy, post-industrialized knowledge economy (through some strange dance of social democracy and corporatism that I don't quite understand but do admire), just because Argentina managed to make itself wealthier, doesn't mean that Zambia will necessarily be able to do the same. It may be that rural Zambians are simply irrelevant to global systems of capital. They'll be the abject, external, ignored component of the sytem. It'd be like asking why some hollow in Appalachia can't turn itself into the San Fernando Valley.
What's needed are approaches that recognize this inequality and take steps to redress it--how about massively increased systems of redistribution across borders? For all we decry the shortfalls and shortcomings of international aid, all the transfers that have been made to Africa in the past 50 years actually amount to very little. As Henry Farrell pointed out a few years ago, "the implied complaint of the average Northerner to the average African can be translated 'I’ve been giving you 20 cents a week for years now, and you’re still poor – you must have squandered my generous help'."
But yes--do focus on governance of resource wealth. It would be much better if Zambia could turn its mineral wealth into lasting industrialization and improved conditions for their people (the same would go for that hollow in Appalachia, too). I'm not doubting that! Dhartung--a more instructive comparison may be with Zambia's neighbor Botswana, which seems to have managed to invest its mineral wealth much more cannily and strategically than many in the region.
Those interested in delving into these questions more deeply might want to check out Morton Jerven's recent book, Poor Numbers: How We Are Misled by African Development Statistics and What To Do About It. Jerven uses a history of Zambia's central statistics office as a case study of how the numbers we use to judge economic success and failure in Africa are often so very, very flawed. Which makes a solid comparative discussion difficult to have in the first place.
posted by col_pogo at 12:46 AM on September 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
That is, I think you're reading "rich or modern" as proxies for "degenerate Western ideas of civilization" best to be avoided.
I think that's a good deal of interpretation, which I suppose is the peril of expressing my question in such abbreviated terms. For more context, do bear in mind that the third richest country in Africa is Nigeria -- a country with pervasive and obscene poverty. This is not a paradox, it's not even unusual. Being a wealthy country not only doesn't imply that the citizenry are well provided for, in realistic terms it doesn't even suggest it. It takes very little imagination to hypothesize a relatively much poorer country in which the quality of life for the citizenry is far higher. We're basically talking about wealth disparity now.
And where you credit "rule of law", that's what I was driving at with "low corruption index" and "universal civil rights".
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:57 AM on September 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think that's a good deal of interpretation, which I suppose is the peril of expressing my question in such abbreviated terms. For more context, do bear in mind that the third richest country in Africa is Nigeria -- a country with pervasive and obscene poverty. This is not a paradox, it's not even unusual. Being a wealthy country not only doesn't imply that the citizenry are well provided for, in realistic terms it doesn't even suggest it. It takes very little imagination to hypothesize a relatively much poorer country in which the quality of life for the citizenry is far higher. We're basically talking about wealth disparity now.
And where you credit "rule of law", that's what I was driving at with "low corruption index" and "universal civil rights".
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:57 AM on September 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't know that there are really exemplary cases of countries that control their resource wealth and siphon sufficient income to provide for a truly enviable society
Norway?
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 1:39 AM on September 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Norway?
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 1:39 AM on September 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Col_pogo I've had pore numbers on my to buy list for a while,I think you've just pushed me over the edge.
posted by smoke at 4:51 AM on September 14, 2013
posted by smoke at 4:51 AM on September 14, 2013
I don't know that there are really exemplary cases of countries that control their resource wealth and siphon sufficient income to provide for a truly enviable society
Norway?
Alaska?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 6:15 AM on September 14, 2013
Norway?
Alaska?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 6:15 AM on September 14, 2013
> The author of the article is to be commended for resisting easy solutions and explanations, but there were some odd notes about the article. Like ending with the bit about trophy hunting. Are we supposed to shudder in horror? Done well, trophy hunting can be good for both conservation and local livelihoods.
You have missed the point. This is not the kind of article that ends with a paragraph neatly summing up the author's conclusions, it is the kind of article that ends with a telling anecdote. The anecdote is not intended to suggest that trophy hunting is evil (and we are "supposed to shudder in horror"), the whole point of it is the punch line: "They’re just going to take it away." For "impala," read "the country's resources." It's not some sort of deep insight that's supposed to blow your mind, it's just a punchy ending. If you don't like it, ignore it, but it would be silly to let it color your view of the whole piece, which is (to my mind) very well written and thoughtful.
> Why do we suppose that there is a way to make the country rich? ... It may be that rural Zambians are simply irrelevant to global systems of capital. They'll be the abject, external, ignored component of the sytem.
Yes, it may be, and the author might agree with you. I don't think anyone's assuming there's a way to make the country rich, but normal people with functioning moral systems do not look at a bunch of miserable Zambians, think "Well, guess they're doomed to misery," and walk away without a second thought. It is perfectly in order to wonder how their lot might be improved and to feel frustrated at the manifold problems that seem to stand in the way of that. Do you have a problem with that? If not, what is your point?
posted by languagehat at 6:33 AM on September 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
You have missed the point. This is not the kind of article that ends with a paragraph neatly summing up the author's conclusions, it is the kind of article that ends with a telling anecdote. The anecdote is not intended to suggest that trophy hunting is evil (and we are "supposed to shudder in horror"), the whole point of it is the punch line: "They’re just going to take it away." For "impala," read "the country's resources." It's not some sort of deep insight that's supposed to blow your mind, it's just a punchy ending. If you don't like it, ignore it, but it would be silly to let it color your view of the whole piece, which is (to my mind) very well written and thoughtful.
> Why do we suppose that there is a way to make the country rich? ... It may be that rural Zambians are simply irrelevant to global systems of capital. They'll be the abject, external, ignored component of the sytem.
Yes, it may be, and the author might agree with you. I don't think anyone's assuming there's a way to make the country rich, but normal people with functioning moral systems do not look at a bunch of miserable Zambians, think "Well, guess they're doomed to misery," and walk away without a second thought. It is perfectly in order to wonder how their lot might be improved and to feel frustrated at the manifold problems that seem to stand in the way of that. Do you have a problem with that? If not, what is your point?
posted by languagehat at 6:33 AM on September 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Must read on the subject: Guns, Germs and Steel
posted by elpapacito at 6:52 AM on September 14, 2013
posted by elpapacito at 6:52 AM on September 14, 2013
Languagehat: you're right about the closer, of course. I've just been too close to the conservation game (pun wasn't intended, but I'm keeping it!) in Southern Africa lately to read it on more than a surface level. So I thought it was just a cheap dig at trophy hunting, which it isn't, really.
I am a bit alarmed that I came across as someone without a functioning moral system. Guess I need to re-read my comments for tone before hitting post.
I didn't mean to suggest that I was disagreeing with the author's point! When I said he was to be commended I meant what I said. I've spent a lot of time professionally (academically) thinking about exactly these problems and studying them in Zambia and other places and feeling frustrated about them, and it is exactly right to go some place like Zambia feel the way the author feels, for many of the reasons that he outlines.
And then my point was to say that a bit more explicit consideration of the international system might be in order. It may be that none of the proposed solutions succeed because that's just the way the world works, now. It will have poor people like rural and peri-urban Zambians and projects aimed at helping produce their way out of this predicament may not work. (This is a bit like the predicament of America's working poor in the face of massive outsourcing and increased automation. What are they supposed to do? Reinvent themselves as knowledge workers?)
I then suggested one solution, in the shape of massively increased transfers of wealth from one part of the world to another. Moving from one predicated on the (perhaps impossible) prospect of producing their way out of poverty and suggesting that we should think harder about how they could get out of poverty through distribution. Like we (should) do in the Appalachians: making government programs available funded from outside the region, allowing them the freedom to move out if they want/need to, etc.
Or maybe that is too pessimistic, and piecemeal efforts to put in place controls over corruption and foreign exploitation of resources, to promote internal redistribution of wealth (because Zambia does have a growing upper middle class--who earn enough to keep a Western standard of living even though much of the components of that way of life are relatively more expensive there), and to engage in industrial planning, will all work. I hope that's the case!
Anyway, before I felt the need to defend my honor, I was coming back here to post a link to Zambian Watchdog, which is a good source on what is going on in Zambia. It is utterly biased against the current government (which has arrested several of its journalists and banned access to it from within Zambia) and I'm not sure about its information checks, but it is popular for all that, particularly among expat Zambians. The Post is the most popular and respected paper in the country. It has had a history of independence from government, but it campaigned strongly for Sata and when I was last there but some people grumpily referred to it as a second (third, maybe?) state newspaper. Still worth a read, though.
posted by col_pogo at 6:59 AM on September 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I am a bit alarmed that I came across as someone without a functioning moral system. Guess I need to re-read my comments for tone before hitting post.
I didn't mean to suggest that I was disagreeing with the author's point! When I said he was to be commended I meant what I said. I've spent a lot of time professionally (academically) thinking about exactly these problems and studying them in Zambia and other places and feeling frustrated about them, and it is exactly right to go some place like Zambia feel the way the author feels, for many of the reasons that he outlines.
And then my point was to say that a bit more explicit consideration of the international system might be in order. It may be that none of the proposed solutions succeed because that's just the way the world works, now. It will have poor people like rural and peri-urban Zambians and projects aimed at helping produce their way out of this predicament may not work. (This is a bit like the predicament of America's working poor in the face of massive outsourcing and increased automation. What are they supposed to do? Reinvent themselves as knowledge workers?)
I then suggested one solution, in the shape of massively increased transfers of wealth from one part of the world to another. Moving from one predicated on the (perhaps impossible) prospect of producing their way out of poverty and suggesting that we should think harder about how they could get out of poverty through distribution. Like we (should) do in the Appalachians: making government programs available funded from outside the region, allowing them the freedom to move out if they want/need to, etc.
Or maybe that is too pessimistic, and piecemeal efforts to put in place controls over corruption and foreign exploitation of resources, to promote internal redistribution of wealth (because Zambia does have a growing upper middle class--who earn enough to keep a Western standard of living even though much of the components of that way of life are relatively more expensive there), and to engage in industrial planning, will all work. I hope that's the case!
Anyway, before I felt the need to defend my honor, I was coming back here to post a link to Zambian Watchdog, which is a good source on what is going on in Zambia. It is utterly biased against the current government (which has arrested several of its journalists and banned access to it from within Zambia) and I'm not sure about its information checks, but it is popular for all that, particularly among expat Zambians. The Post is the most popular and respected paper in the country. It has had a history of independence from government, but it campaigned strongly for Sata and when I was last there but some people grumpily referred to it as a second (third, maybe?) state newspaper. Still worth a read, though.
posted by col_pogo at 6:59 AM on September 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
This is very reminiscent of the Tanzania chapter of P.J. O'Rourke's Eat The Rich, which is a very interesting and funny book.
Was that written before or after Tanzania discovered oil in the Albertine Graben and gas offshire? Because if before, I am sure there has been a big change on the ground.
Don't worry, poor little Zambia, they're looking for oil and gas in you too.
Kinda related, but included in this (ESL-written) article are some pics of abandoned towns in Namibia you may care to view.
posted by Mezentian at 7:18 AM on September 14, 2013
Was that written before or after Tanzania discovered oil in the Albertine Graben and gas offshire? Because if before, I am sure there has been a big change on the ground.
Don't worry, poor little Zambia, they're looking for oil and gas in you too.
Kinda related, but included in this (ESL-written) article are some pics of abandoned towns in Namibia you may care to view.
posted by Mezentian at 7:18 AM on September 14, 2013
Am I alone in thinking that if a country has a low corruption index, universal civil rights and is capable of feeding itself, that it doesn't need to be either rich or modern? Are there any happily low-tech countries in the world?
This was more or less Gandhi's vision for an independent India - after throwing off British rule via what is still the world's most successful non-violent movement, he wanted to return power to little villages which would make their own salt and homespun cloth. A harmonious society, Hindus and Muslims living side by side, with their villages and cottage industries, governed from the bottom up.
Nehru (and Jinnah - the first prime minsters of India and Pakistan respectively) had a rather different vision. Under the direction set by Nehru and then his daughter Indira (Gandhi, but Nehru's daughter) and grandson[*], India implemented its five-year development plans, undertook the Green revolution (large scale farming), overcame chronic famine, founded the Non-Aligned Movement to kinda-sorta' balance between the USSR and the USA, launched its own satellites, and here we are today, IT back office and call center to the world. Meanwhile, the poverty and inequality still makes headlines.
Gandhi, of course, was assassinated, but he more or less died of a broken heart when it became clear that the country was going to be partitioned between Hindus and Muslims, and India would follow Nehru's fast track, not his utopian idealistic vision. It's a rather intriguing "might have been" to think about.
[*: Think George H.W., George W., and George P.]
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:58 AM on September 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
This was more or less Gandhi's vision for an independent India - after throwing off British rule via what is still the world's most successful non-violent movement, he wanted to return power to little villages which would make their own salt and homespun cloth. A harmonious society, Hindus and Muslims living side by side, with their villages and cottage industries, governed from the bottom up.
Nehru (and Jinnah - the first prime minsters of India and Pakistan respectively) had a rather different vision. Under the direction set by Nehru and then his daughter Indira (Gandhi, but Nehru's daughter) and grandson[*], India implemented its five-year development plans, undertook the Green revolution (large scale farming), overcame chronic famine, founded the Non-Aligned Movement to kinda-sorta' balance between the USSR and the USA, launched its own satellites, and here we are today, IT back office and call center to the world. Meanwhile, the poverty and inequality still makes headlines.
Gandhi, of course, was assassinated, but he more or less died of a broken heart when it became clear that the country was going to be partitioned between Hindus and Muslims, and India would follow Nehru's fast track, not his utopian idealistic vision. It's a rather intriguing "might have been" to think about.
[*: Think George H.W., George W., and George P.]
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:58 AM on September 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
> I am a bit alarmed that I came across as someone without a functioning moral system. Guess I need to re-read my comments for tone before hitting post.
Yikes, I didn't mean to suggest that at all! I assumed you had a functioning moral system, and was just trying to explain why I felt your comment needed some explanation, which you have provided admirably. Sorry for seeming to attack you. And I can certainly understand how you misread the ending.
> This was more or less Gandhi's vision for an independent India
And a terrible vision it was. Are there really still people who get misty-eyed at the thought of disease-ridden peasants merrily plying their spinning wheels as they watch their children die at an early age? Gandhi was admirable in a few limited ways, but he is admired far beyond his due; for one thing, he was as responsible as anyone for the disaster that overtook India (the campaign of mass civil disobedience was making great strides before he called it off in an abrupt snit in 1922).
posted by languagehat at 2:36 PM on September 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yikes, I didn't mean to suggest that at all! I assumed you had a functioning moral system, and was just trying to explain why I felt your comment needed some explanation, which you have provided admirably. Sorry for seeming to attack you. And I can certainly understand how you misread the ending.
> This was more or less Gandhi's vision for an independent India
And a terrible vision it was. Are there really still people who get misty-eyed at the thought of disease-ridden peasants merrily plying their spinning wheels as they watch their children die at an early age? Gandhi was admirable in a few limited ways, but he is admired far beyond his due; for one thing, he was as responsible as anyone for the disaster that overtook India (the campaign of mass civil disobedience was making great strides before he called it off in an abrupt snit in 1922).
posted by languagehat at 2:36 PM on September 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Has no one noticed the author is Michael Hobbes? His namesake actually answered this question. From wiki....
Without a functional government, society degenerates back to the "state of nature", the "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). The description contains what has been called one of the best known passages in English philosophy, which describes the natural state mankind would be in, were it not for political community:
In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
— "Chapter XIII.: Of the Natural Condition of Mankind As Concerning Their Felicity, and Misery.", Leviathan
posted by RandlePatrickMcMurphy at 12:13 AM on September 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Without a functional government, society degenerates back to the "state of nature", the "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). The description contains what has been called one of the best known passages in English philosophy, which describes the natural state mankind would be in, were it not for political community:
In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
— "Chapter XIII.: Of the Natural Condition of Mankind As Concerning Their Felicity, and Misery.", Leviathan
posted by RandlePatrickMcMurphy at 12:13 AM on September 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
maybe Bhutan?
The Bhutanese refugee situation has become one of the most protracted and neglected refugee crises in the world.
posted by solotoro at 8:14 AM on September 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
The Bhutanese refugee situation has become one of the most protracted and neglected refugee crises in the world.
posted by solotoro at 8:14 AM on September 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
« Older 20 years, black cat, black cat | Speed Kills Your Pocketbook Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by klangklangston at 5:30 PM on September 13, 2013