This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Its 2010 - Why is Africa still under-developed?

Fantastic to see the level of interest and to almost feel the concern. But painful to feel and hear that noboday has even started to touch on the structural issues. By way of example, corruption is just a sympton of one of the many wider issues.

Here is a taster/scenario. A western government offers $1bn of aid to an African country to help with the development of new infrastructure - roads, hospitals, etc. One of the conditions is that the African country stumps up $1bn to match the generosity of the donor. A western bank offers a $1bn loan.

Deal done. A western firm gets the management contract, another one gets the design and build contract. They both employ, train and pay European Engineers, technicians and others who continue to earn, learn and grow whilst they are working on these projects. They also employ sub-contractors (in Europe) and those subbies employ others - a thriving industry springs up around the project....in Europe. The loan monies get allocated as follows - administration costs and corruption take 5%, the European firm gets 95% to complete the job. The $2bn is deemed well spent...in Europe. The news headlines focus on a $2bn aid package. Another $2bn is lined up for the next poor African country. The African country gets a new road... going nowhere. A white elephant. No thriving economy around the project, no trained engineers, etc.

There are numerous books out there (one by Cheik Anta Diop) that do a much better job explaining the structural problems than I can. I hope this helps the discussion.

Reply 81

py0alb

3

Sege

Fantastic to see the level of interest and to almost feel the concern. But painful to feel and hear that noboday has even started to touch on the structural issues. By way of example, corruption is just a sympton of one of the many wider issues.

Here is a taster/scenario. A western government offers $1bn of aid to an African country to help with the development of new infrastructure - roads, hospitals, etc. One of the conditions is that the African country stumps up $1bn to match the generosity of the donor. A western bank offers a $1bn loan.

Deal done. A western firm gets the management contract, another one gets the design and build contract. They both employ, train and pay European Engineers, technicians and others who continue to earn, learn and grow whilst they are working on these projects. They also employ sub-contractors (in Europe) and those subbies employ others - a thriving industry springs up around the project....in Europe. The loan monies get allocated as follows - administration costs and corruption take 5%, the European firm gets 95% to complete the job. The $2bn is deemed well spent...in Europe. The news headlines focus on a $2bn aid package. Another $2bn is lined up for the next poor African country. The African country gets a new road... going nowhere. A white elephant. No thriving economy around the project, no trained engineers, etc.

There are numerous books out there (one by Cheik Anta Diop) that do a much better job explaining the structural problems than I can. I hope this helps the discussion.

This.

You didn't mention the "conditions" often imposed on the African country in return for the loan - such as opening up their market to cheap American or European cars, thus rendering any attempts to start up a homegrown auto industry dead in the water, or a percentage stake in various natural resources, like Africa's huge collection of mineral mines for example, which net them a virtually negligible profit because all the money goes straight to American companies.

The thing is - noone actually wants to help Africa. They all prefer to help themselves under the guise of helping Africa.

Reply 82

ypo

6

SatanIsAwesome

Africa is just a **** place, nothing really there, it's also riddled with diseases.
Not really much it can do to develop.

Funny how white South Africa and Rhodesia were such successes then... Funny also how Indians, Lebanese and now Chinese have done so well in Africa.

The simple, uncomfortable truth is that Africa is a mess because it's full of Africans. Look at any major black city around the world - even in rich America or the UK (think Detroit, Harlem, Gary, New Orleans, Brixton, Peckham, etc). Same thing, different place. As is said, you can take the African out of Africa but you can't take Africa out of the African.

Reply 83

py0alb

3

Daniiel

Actually most of it has been now. :rolleyes:

Who told you that?

Reply 84

Sege

ypo

Funny how white South Africa and Rhodesia were such successes then... Funny also how Indians, Lebanese and now Chinese have done so well in Africa.

The simply, uncomfortable truth is that Africa is a mess because it's full of Africans. Look at any major black city around the world - even in rich America or the UK (think Detroit, Harlem, Gary, New Orleans, Brixton, Peckham, etc). Same thing, different place. As is said, you can take the African out of Africa but you can't take Africa out of the African.

I like the bit about taking Africa out of the African - Obama has two left feet...but to compensate, he plays a great game of basketball. We are all confused - due to what we hear in the Media - and we regurgitate stuff that has no foundation because we find it hard to see beyond the media headlines. Poverty and race seem inextricably linked, but have nothing to do with it.

Anyways, I agree that White South Africa and Rhodesia were successes - economic successes, for a relatively small group of people. Certainly not funny how both successes were built on the back of exploited African labour and resources. However, to build a great nation or company or community or family, exploitation is often the easiest route. To help put this into context, even Rome was not built in a day...it was built on the back of the many nations that formed the Roman Empire. That is not the issue (for me) - I like capitalism and I benefit from it everyday.

The real issue is structural (see taster in earlier post). Unless we invest a little time to educate ourselves (look at both modern and ancient world history and learn about economics), the risk is that we'll be forever stuck in tiny misguided, ignorant and racist mindsets.

Here is another taster. Structural issues start with division. History is a real eye opener. If you cut a nation in two (take the Yoruba for example) and then try to create "new countries" by merging two or three very different nations together, you will have conflict, wars and worse. Time heals and creates unity but it does not happen overnight. However, if you also try to build empires on the backs of divided and "new countries", the resulting harsh economic conditions create more tension, conflict and wars.

Note - I've tried to keep this real simple and easy to digest - I'm not an authority on these issues - I hope this helps to refocus the discussion. I'm sure that someone out there knows more about the structural problems ...and the role of history and economics in answering the big question that we all want to know the answer to (its 2010 - Why is Africa still under-developed?)

Reply 85

ypo

6

Sege

Anyways, I agree that White South Africa and Rhodesia were successes - economic successes, for a relatively small group of people. Certainly not funny how both successes were built on the back of exploited African labour and resources.

Suppose we accept your claim that Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia gained their wealth and success off the back of the poor black man. This also belittles the point that black South Africans and Rhodesians lived much healthier and more prosperous lives than any other 'free' Africans, but hey let's hypothetically accept it. Now my question: why has no black country been able to 'exploit' their black masses for wealth like South Africa and Rhodesia? With the comments on this forum about African leadership I can't believe its due to their kind benevolence for their people.

Reply 86

masterglen3

Why don't Oxfam, and Christian Aid, give all the money they make every year to the british government, and keep using all the money to pay africa's loan repayments. Although I think we know even if Africa's debt was written off, nothing would change.

Reply 87

Daniiel

13

py0alb

Who told you that?

It's in my geography notes somewhere and I cba finding them. :rolleyes:

Was some big conference or something. :yep:

EDIT: G8 Summit, look it up. :rolleyes:

Only 18 poorest completely wiped, though most have had interest wiped aswell I think. :sexface:

Reply 88

py0alb

3

Daniiel

It's in my geography notes somewhere and I cba finding them. :rolleyes:

Was some big conference or something. :yep:

EDIT: G8 Summit, look it up. :rolleyes:

Only 18 poorest completely wiped, though most have had interest wiped aswell I think. :sexface:

Read this: :smile:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/06/14/spin-lies-and-corruption/

Reply 89

Daniiel

13

py0alb

Read this: :smile:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/06/14/spin-lies-and-corruption/

Cba reading all that. :p:

Reply 90

py0alb

3

Daniiel

Cba reading all that. :p:

well then you'll never know the truth...

Reply 91

Daniiel

13

I do it's somewhere in my head.. :rolleyes:

Something about been spent on schools and hospitals and a neverending cycle which doesn't allow them to make money?

Reply 92

Rokit

16

OpenMindedRepublic

Billions have been donated over the last decade and Africans cant do something about making them continent/countries better?

I suggest you read a few of the books that have been suggested on here although they might be way past your understanding

I also get the inkling that you are one of the many morons who watch television and believe everything you watch. Until you have actually visited the continent then you really can't speak as each country is totally different believe it or not :rolleyes:

Reply 93

Rokit

16

ypo

I'm going to speak blunt here and no doubt get tonnes of neg rep for this. But if all the money we give to help African to build up its infrastructure, improve its education system, battle HIV/AIDs etc was instead investing in improving the cognitive ability of black Africans through eugenic practices and gene therapy then Africa's problems would vanish in a generation.

And you are just a tool and most probably so bored with yourself right now you feel the need to troll :yep:

Reply 94

Sege

ypo

Suppose we accept your claim that Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia gained their wealth and success off the back of the poor black man. This also belittles the point that black South Africans and Rhodesians lived much healthier and more prosperous lives than any other 'free' Africans, but hey let's hypothetically accept it. Now my question: why has no black country been able to 'exploit' their black masses for wealth like South Africa and Rhodesia? With the comments on this forum about African leadership I can't believe its due to their kind benevolence for their people.

Most of us have played monopoly. Right, let's play the game with slightly different rules. Ok, so lets say that I start with a much bigger cash balance than everyone else - therefore, I have a comparative advantage. Whatever happens, I'll be able to buy more properties and build on them much sooner than everyone else. It's also more likely that you'll all pay me more rent than I pay you. The laws of probability take care of the rest of the game. I win. But the game does not need to end. To keep you in the game (and to really enjoy my comparative advantage), I'll offer loans and keep on extending them. By acting like a benevolent and kind landlord, I'll push you into a permanently indebted and disadvantaged position. Of course, I want you to be able to afford my rent so my benevolence/extended loans will ensure that you appear to be both healthy and prosperous.

So, to make this easy to digest, say that a colonial master has a small comparative advantage over some poor African country. There is not much that the country can do to close the gap in the short term or stop "paying rent". The master wins. It really is that simple - the rest is debt, aid and so called debt forgiveness. The structural problem is firmly in place. In the short term, the poor get poorer, until structural imbalances are removed. To be sure, all we need to do is go back full circle - every continent has at some stage had a "comparative advantage".

My simple ramblings are but snippets - the notes of someone who practically stumbled upon historical facts concerning Africa's economic development. I'll leave you to objectively research this - I'm just amazed that the Internet has not exposed more people to the work of Cheikh Anta Diop, Walter Rodney and other authorities on African history.

Yes, even African nations had a comparative advantage. Before they were colonies, their people lived relatively healthy and prosperous lives. Based on the postings so far, some will be shocked and surprised - because we've all been conditioned by headlines that blindly focus on Africa's current perceived state of hopelessness. I'm still hopeful that an interested authority on the structural issues can take the discussion forward.

Reply 95

Chi019

5

ypo

Now my question: why has no black country been able to 'exploit' their black masses for wealth like South Africa and Rhodesia? .

UC Davis economist Greg Clark has done some interesting work on selection for 'middle class traits'.

In my recent book, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World I argue two things. First that all societies remained in a state I label the “Malthusian economy” up until the onset of the Industrial Revolution around 1800. In that state crucially the economic laws governing all human societies before 1800 were those that govern all animal societies. Second that was thus subject to natural selection throughout the Malthusian era, even after the arrival of settled agrarian societies with the Neolithic Revolution.

The Darwinian struggle that shaped human nature did not end with the Neolithic Revolution but continued right up until the Industrial Revolution. But the arrival of settled agriculture and stable property rights set natural selection on a very different course. It created an accelerated period of evolution, rewarding with reproductive success a new repertoire of human behaviors – patience, self-control, passivity, and hard work – which consequently spread widely.

And we see in England, from at least 1250, that the kind of people who succeeded in the economic system – who accumulated assets, got skills, got literacy – increased their representation in each generation. Through the long agrarian passage leading up to the Industrial Revolution man was becoming biologically more adapted to the modern economic world. Modern people are thus in part a creation of the market economies that emerged with the Neolithic Revolution. Just as people shaped economies, the pre-industrial economy shaped people. This has left the people of long settled agrarian societies substantially different now from our hunter gatherer ancestors, in terms of culture, and likely also in terms of biology.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/07/social-darwinism-21st-century-edition.html

Its 2010 - Why is Africa still under-developed?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you