I am sure you have been told that high poverty levels is one of the major problems in Africa. But hold your thought and may be assess it after you have read this post. Should the high level of poverty in Africa be a source of concern to the international community? Should we be worried about the poverty level based on the specific numbers or on the ratios? The total of all people in Uganda (34.5m, 2011) , Botswana (2.09m), Swaziland(1.38m), Namibia (2.16m) would be below the poverty line in America. A report from Indiana University found out that increasing numbers of Americans are still below the poverty line. In 2006, it was 36.5 million people, by 2010, it was 46.2 million and a further increase was predicted for 2011, given the way the economic crisis has dragged on.
Interestingly all the above African countries are beneficiaries of the support to reduction of poverty from the U.S. in one way or another. One element that you may need to note is that a poor person in the United States is actually poor. In Uganda about 32% (about 11 million people) of the population leave below poverty line, i.e. they earn less than a dollar a day. But come to think of it, all these people continue to live without external support. In other words, they earn just enough survive marginally. An American in the same position must get supported or he or she will starve. Could it be that the problems in Africa are not well analyzed or if they are, may be they construed to fit some interests?
So why do reach countries continue to support less developed countries on the fight against poverty in Africa when in their countries the situation is staggering also? China has over 100 million people living below the poverty line. Actually all the people in Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya would be below poverty line in China despite its emergence as the world's second largest economy. Yet China continues to pump money to African economies instead of concentrating on elevating its own people out of poverty. Of course the amount of money China is using in country to fight poverty is excessive but I am sure that if they diverted what they are spending in the continent, purportedly to solve problems in Africa, they would have everybody in china above the poverty line.
Could it be that developed countries continue to support Africa such that they too can keep their own poverty levels low? What i do not understand, is why a breadwinner of a household would donate food to a neighbor at the time when his or her own family is starving? Could this happen in a situation where it is also true that the continued survival of the house hold would be guaranteed, only and only, when the purported starving neighbor must also be given aid? Could it be true that developed countries actually continue to support developing countries as a mechanism to reducing economic imbalances in their home countries?
If we do not consider ratios and instead use absolute numbers, do we come to a conclusion that poverty in Africa is higher than the level in other continents? If in country A there are more people who are actually poor but ratio wise they are fewer in comparison with country B, does that mean that A is better than B?
The other irony which still eludes my mind is the fact the gap between the poor and the rich in the developed countries is also staggeringly high. Again this is one of the reported problems in Africa. But according to a 2010 Federal Reserve Board report, the net worth for all United States households was $53.1trillion. The net worth of the poorest 60% of U.S. households was $1.26 trillion. The net worth for the Forbes 400 was $1.37 trillion. Therefore, the richest 400 people in the United States have more wealth than the bottom 60%, nearly 160 million people (Forbes, 2010, September 22). But how is this being acceptable by America when in their drive to ensure good governance in the developing countries, this is one of their biggest concerns?
We in the developing countries what lessons do we learn from the above situation. Some school of economist believes that a country requires a middle class for it also to be a middle income country. It is easier and cost effective to collect taxes from a few than it is from very many people. Fewer but rich can easily be mobilized to support a developmental goal of the country than when they are many. Resources are limited and if they are in the hands of the many they are scattered and will have minimal incidence to the economy and to the individuals owning them. For effective utilization of resources, they must be concentrated and specialized in the production process. For these reasons, a middle class is inevitable and will always be a small fraction of the population.
Probably the U.S. is following up from the above arguments. But in Africa the development of a middle class where the so rich are fewer is discouraged. The developed countries are at the helm of discouraging African from pursuing this line. Instead we are advised that in order to solve problems in Africa, we should ensure that everybody averagely wealthier. In other words scatter resources so that almost no one has the ability to form a global corporate company that can influence global market dynamics. Can Africa learn to learn from the development path of their colonial masters?
Interestingly all the above African countries are beneficiaries of the support to reduction of poverty from the U.S. in one way or another. One element that you may need to note is that a poor person in the United States is actually poor. In Uganda about 32% (about 11 million people) of the population leave below poverty line, i.e. they earn less than a dollar a day. But come to think of it, all these people continue to live without external support. In other words, they earn just enough survive marginally. An American in the same position must get supported or he or she will starve. Could it be that the problems in Africa are not well analyzed or if they are, may be they construed to fit some interests?
So why do reach countries continue to support less developed countries on the fight against poverty in Africa when in their countries the situation is staggering also? China has over 100 million people living below the poverty line. Actually all the people in Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya would be below poverty line in China despite its emergence as the world's second largest economy. Yet China continues to pump money to African economies instead of concentrating on elevating its own people out of poverty. Of course the amount of money China is using in country to fight poverty is excessive but I am sure that if they diverted what they are spending in the continent, purportedly to solve problems in Africa, they would have everybody in china above the poverty line.
Could it be that developed countries continue to support Africa such that they too can keep their own poverty levels low? What i do not understand, is why a breadwinner of a household would donate food to a neighbor at the time when his or her own family is starving? Could this happen in a situation where it is also true that the continued survival of the house hold would be guaranteed, only and only, when the purported starving neighbor must also be given aid? Could it be true that developed countries actually continue to support developing countries as a mechanism to reducing economic imbalances in their home countries?
If we do not consider ratios and instead use absolute numbers, do we come to a conclusion that poverty in Africa is higher than the level in other continents? If in country A there are more people who are actually poor but ratio wise they are fewer in comparison with country B, does that mean that A is better than B?
The other irony which still eludes my mind is the fact the gap between the poor and the rich in the developed countries is also staggeringly high. Again this is one of the reported problems in Africa. But according to a 2010 Federal Reserve Board report, the net worth for all United States households was $53.1trillion. The net worth of the poorest 60% of U.S. households was $1.26 trillion. The net worth for the Forbes 400 was $1.37 trillion. Therefore, the richest 400 people in the United States have more wealth than the bottom 60%, nearly 160 million people (Forbes, 2010, September 22). But how is this being acceptable by America when in their drive to ensure good governance in the developing countries, this is one of their biggest concerns?
We in the developing countries what lessons do we learn from the above situation. Some school of economist believes that a country requires a middle class for it also to be a middle income country. It is easier and cost effective to collect taxes from a few than it is from very many people. Fewer but rich can easily be mobilized to support a developmental goal of the country than when they are many. Resources are limited and if they are in the hands of the many they are scattered and will have minimal incidence to the economy and to the individuals owning them. For effective utilization of resources, they must be concentrated and specialized in the production process. For these reasons, a middle class is inevitable and will always be a small fraction of the population.
Probably the U.S. is following up from the above arguments. But in Africa the development of a middle class where the so rich are fewer is discouraged. The developed countries are at the helm of discouraging African from pursuing this line. Instead we are advised that in order to solve problems in Africa, we should ensure that everybody averagely wealthier. In other words scatter resources so that almost no one has the ability to form a global corporate company that can influence global market dynamics. Can Africa learn to learn from the development path of their colonial masters?
No comments:
Post a Comment