|
Aid Societies (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Which is why I focus on institutional development and political reform. :)
The best route toward a better quality of life and a lower rate of relapse into conflict is inculcating a sense of public service in bureaucratic institutions. The idea of the "public good" is one that is absent in much of Africa - creating a civil service that aims to serve its population can reduce corruption and increase the amount of aid (and public spending) that reaches peripheral populations (in the form of education funding, health care, utilities, etc.).
If a government cares about it's people, the people are likely to be better off. And if the people don't have a reason to hate the government, they're less likely to support violent opposition movements. |
I was unaware of the concept of the "common good" being unknown there. That in a way foreshadows why they are where they are. Every man for himself for generations.
I also am with you on the spending on things like education, health care, etc. It promotes a more productive society. |
|
|
| smellyblack |
aid society = aids.
come on you dumb s the humour writes itself. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by smellyblack
aid society = aids.
come on you dumb s the humour writes itself. |
:haha: :haha: |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
I was unaware of the concept of the "common good" being unknown there. That in a way foreshadows why they are where they are. Every man for himself for generations. |
Well, common in the sense of nation or state. Aortik touches on that in the thread in PDD about how Africa lacks any sense of national identity, but basically, prior to colonialism the African political sphere was largely located within individual villages - there were some forms of political federations (such as the Zulu Empire), though those seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
In other words, people may be loyal to fellow members of their village, but there is little understanding of what it means to be part of a multi-ethnic pluralistic society on a macro scale. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
It's also worth mentioning here that African political development is in its infancy. It took Europe centuries to get the relationship between government and the people right - how many countries were destroyed and how many wars were fought over injustices since the formation of political states in Europe? Even since Westphalia, sovereignty has never come easy.
It's only very recently that state institutions in Europe have matured enough to inculcate a culture of the public good. Africa's had forty years of independence - part of the problem is they're being held to a much higher standard than any other independent political entities ever have. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Well, common in the sense of nation or state. Aortik touches on that in the thread in PDD about how Africa lacks any sense of national identity, but basically, prior to colonialism the African political sphere was largely located within individual villages - there were some forms of political federations (such as the Zulu Empire), though those seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
In other words, people may be loyal to fellow members of their village, but there is little understanding of what it means to be part of a multi-ethnic pluralistic society on a macro scale. |
Ahh I see what you mean.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
It's also worth mentioning here that African political development is in its infancy. It took Europe centuries to get the relationship between government and the people right - how many countries were destroyed and how many wars were fought over injustices since the formation of political states in Europe? Even since Westphalia, sovereignty has never come easy.
It's only very recently that state institutions in Europe have matured enough to inculcate a culture of the public good. Africa's had forty years of independence - part of the problem is they're being held to a much higher standard than any other independent political entities ever have. |
Very true, but does Africa have to make EVERY mistake that previous countries made? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
She's the same economist I brought up in the Development and Taxes thread in PDD. :p
Her argument is definitely an interesting new take, but she has no real answer for the success of human development assistance - only macroeconomic policy as it relates to 1980s/1990s conditionality programs promoted by the World Bank. In any case, cutting off all aid for Africa is a radical idea, and she's about to get her wish in Darfur, where the government of Sudan has kicked all Western organizations out and left the people to fend for themselves. It's a novel idea to get Africa sustaining itself asap (and after all, that's the goal of the development industry, despite suspicions to the contrary) - but it's simply not practical at this juncture - Africa is too reliant still.
So when the death counts in Darfur roll in, we'll know better what would happen if the West up and left Africa altogether. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
lol I hate reading PDD. That place is usually too many long winded posts that go nowhere the few times I have read a thread in there. So I just don't bother. :p
Also, I agree it is radical, but at least it has a better chance of succeeding than some military government. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
She's the same economist I brought up in the Development and Taxes thread in PDD. :p
Her argument is definitely an interesting new take, but she has no real answer for the success of human development assistance - only macroeconomic policy as it relates to 1980s/1990s conditionality programs promoted by the World Bank. In any case, cutting off all aid for Africa is a radical idea, and she's about to get her wish in Darfur, where the government of Sudan has kicked all Western organizations out and left the people to fend for themselves. It's a novel idea to get Africa sustaining itself asap (and after all, that's the goal of the development industry, despite suspicions to the contrary) - but it's simply not practical at this juncture - Africa is too reliant still.
So when the death counts in Darfur roll in, we'll know better what would happen if the West up and left Africa altogether. |
How do you feel about big multinational companies taking natural resources? Isn't that somewhat on the track towards sustaining itself |
|
|
| ownymcown |
Basically the entire world raped the continent of Africa and we are wondering why the place is a hole?
It's all about the money, not about pitiful forms of aid in sparse amounts but a sustainable money source for the population. Aid makes them feel better in the short term, but what can it really hope to accomplish?
Massive overhauls in basically every aspect of their lives from basic human services to government to their economies are needed.
They are ed unless they can whip up some kind of industry to turn it all around.
As far as conflict regions, how about stopping aid to any side so for once one side can successfully destroy the other side, bringing stability in place of perpetual fighting. That is, until the next group of people try to take over. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
How do you feel about big multinational companies taking natural resources? Isn't that somewhat on the track towards sustaining itself |
I don't think so - there's too much of a tendency for countries to fall in the Dutch Disease trap, where states completely center economies around resource extraction and allow all other industries to go to pot. Indigenous manufacturing and service sectors are neglected in order to maximize extraction output, and the mass export of raw materials skews currency exchange rates to the point where no other products from that country are even entering the world market at semi-competitive prices. The economy becomes one-dimensional, and for those not directly involved in resource extraction, quality of life and income actually goes down.
In addition, money from MNC's for resources is the most commonly corruptible source of income. Name one oil state that is transparent or democratic. It's impossible. Oil states by definition have huge income disparities and high incidence of rent-seeking behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease |
|
|
|
|
