« What do unions do for economic performance? | Main | Africa fact of the day »
Africa
A loyal MR reader asks:
Africa. What are your long term predictions? Which policies should rich countries adopt? Which will they adopt? What can I do?
My long-term prediction is that Africa will stay quite poor. Rich countries should offer Africa complete free trade, but the benefits of this move are overrated. Low productivity, and transport costs and corruption within Africa remain the central problems, not foreign tariffs.
Libertarians are too quick to say that foreign aid is counterproductive. Most African governments would be corrupt anyway, and there is usually some positive trickle-down from the aid. The wastage is massive, and I can understand the desire to stop sending government-to-government aid, but there is a real moral dilemma.
I also think most of Africa is in a Malthusian trap. That is perhaps the better critique of aid, but alas also of trade as well. But even within this trap, wealthy foreigners can help make the transition from one steady state to another less painful. And the trap need not hold in every local corridor. Plus we are offering a lottery ticket (with what p?) out of the trap. Malthus doesn't mean we should turn our backs on suffering.
The intellectual property issues, when it comes to copying drugs, involve an irreconciliable clash between rule and act utilitarianism.
Africa is a much bigger moral dilemma than most people are willing to admit. And that moral dilemma appeared pretty big in the first place.
I see some chance that parts of Africa, such as Ghana and Senegal, will escape the Malthusian trap within twenty to thirty years. That's the most positive prediction I am willing to make.
You can do some good if you are willing to directly administer medical treatments to Africans, in Africa.
Here is an interesting bit:
“Thinking about problems analytically can easily suppress sympathy for smaller-scale disasters without, our research suggests, producing much of an increase in caring for larger-scale disasters”, the researchers said. "Insight, in this situation, seems to breed callousness".
#14 in a series of 50.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 7, 2007 at 06:38 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
Ghana has come a long way in the last quarter of a century -- when I got a job working on Africa issues in 1981, it was among the most disappointing performers in Africa. Now, it's among the top few. (Of course, it had been among the top few back 50 years ago when it got its independence.)
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Mar 7, 2007 8:37:04 AM
I partly agree with you, but I would like to distinguish between local help by private institutions and welfare programs and what the EU calls "foreign aid". State-sponsoring foreign aid will not help the poor, however, spending money on Doctors without borders, SOS Kinderdörfer and similar institutions is seldom wasted money.
Although I am highly critical of filling the textile market in Africa with cheap "old clothes" from our countries, this might be actually counter-productive.
Posted by: Max at Mar 7, 2007 8:37:59 AM
Heh. You see a chance that parts of Africa will escape the Malthusian trap in 20-30 years...
Econ Forecaster checklist:
1) use "chance", because it is different than "probably" or "will", and whatever happens is consistent with that
2) use "parts", which may be Ghana, but any one of those countries, even regions, would fulfill the prediction
3) "escape the Malthusian trap" is a weak criteria for 'success', GDP per capita greater that $3000/yr?
4) And then, in 20-30 years, which implies it could easily be 40 with the standard errors implicit.
Really going out on a limb!
Posted by: eric at Mar 7, 2007 9:07:12 AM
According to the economic historian Angus Maddison, the continent of Africa had the same wealth level in 1992 that Western Europe had in 1820, the beginning of the era of economic growth.
A quick fix is not likely.
Posted by: monkey at Mar 7, 2007 9:23:57 AM
re: "thinking about problems analytically...."
interesting, but i don't think unacceptable. it's easy to make decisions about individuals' stories: either you believe them or you don't, and with confidence.
when talking about aggregates, though, it's not so easy to make decisions. all that lies, damned lies, and statistics stuff. given that most people aren't incredibly numerate and that there is no shortage of experts and causes, it's hard to decide what's worthy of support and what's not. roughly, it seems like the choice of prejudices is: give more (i.e. be less selective) or give less (i.e. be more selective). can you blame someone for choosing the latter? life is hard enough as it is. it sounds callous, but i don’t think the experts should pooh-pooh the cautious. we're all not rocket scientists.
Posted by: student at Mar 7, 2007 9:29:16 AM
"The intellectual property issues, when it comes to copying drugs, involve an irreconciliable clash between rule and act utilitarianism."
Rule utilitarianism is a sham, for reasons discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_utilitarianism
The IP issues are a clash between a rule and an act, but not between two different types of morality (does the rule -without-exceptions or the rule-with-rare-exceptions-in-cases-this-urgent lead to greater utility?) If you are a utilitarian, the clash is definitely not irrenconcilable, it is simply a matter of measurement. (A tough matter, to be sure).
Posted by: mk at Mar 7, 2007 10:06:39 AM
The wastage is massive, and I can understand the desire to stop sending government-to-government aid, but there is a real moral dilemma.
There is no moral dilemma. I am under no duty to assist Africa, and I shouldn't be taken from to fulfill a duty I don't have.
- Josh
Posted by: Wild Pegasus at Mar 7, 2007 10:24:59 AM
> Rich countries should offer Africa complete free trade, but the benefits of this move are overrated...
What about increased immigration allowances to rich countries? Many rich countries could use the population boost and other benefits that immigrants bring. Plus, immigrants would channel money back home to Africa in the form of remittances, which must be more effective than government-to-government aid.
Posted by: Christopher Monnier at Mar 7, 2007 10:39:38 AM
I, too, feel no moral dilemma or obligation in regard to African politics, health, genocide, poverty, etc. Sympathy, of course. But obligation? Let's examine the implications of that word very carefully before deploying it.
Those of us who feel enough sympathy will support the efficient and effective private programs that help those in need. Those of us who are not inclined to support foreign aid shouldn't be taxed to do so. And those who would tax the rest of us to fund government programs need to examine their own paternalistic claim to a White Man's Burden.
Posted by: anne at Mar 7, 2007 10:50:51 AM
I don't know if the future is that bleak. South Africa is quite well developed (at least compared to its neighbors - Gauteng alone is some enormous percentage of the entire continent's GDP). Some of the island nations (Mauritius in particular) are as well off as SE Asia. My hunch would be that if the birth rate were lower, and the country were able to avoid major graft/civil war, there's no reason the Asian model couldn't work in Africa. It would be interesting to see some country attempt to be the Singapore of some part of Africa, serving as a shipping/infrastructure hub. Tanzania (Zanzibar)?
I'm unconvinced that there's anything special about Africa which prevents its development.
Posted by: cure at Mar 7, 2007 11:18:36 AM
The only real hope I see of increasing the wealth of the majority of poor Africans living in poor African countries over a timescale of decades is some form of neo-colonization by the West.
Posted by: Bruce G Charlton at Mar 7, 2007 11:32:12 AM
Christopher,
Increased emmigration would help the emigrants, so I am all for it, but there will still be just as may poor people in Africa as the population comes to its steady state. Maybe somewhat fewer poor people if the most productive are the ones that left, but this will likely come from an increase in the death rate rather than a decrease in the birth rate, so we can't count it as a win.
AS far as obligation goes, don't read so much pejorative into the term. You personally are under no obligation that stems from some kind of Grand Ethical Law. For me personally, as a human being who is genetically programmed to feel empathy for other human beings, I feel obligated to do something. I just wish I had the slightest clue what to do.
Posted by: josh at Mar 7, 2007 11:36:16 AM
"Although I am highly critical of filling the textile market in Africa with cheap "old clothes" from our countries, this might be actually counter-productive."
This is a broken window fallacy. Any decrease in the textile industry due to the West's "old clothes" will translate to an increase in other sectors, such as water and food.
In general, Africa is the last remnant of what almost all of human history was like before the industrial revolution. As Milton Friedman said, the vast majority of humans throughout history lived in tyranny and misery.
The liberal democratic systems which arose in Western Europe after the enlightenment were one of the first exceptions to this rule. Africa will need countries to attract that kind of liberal democratic system to ever get out of poverty.
Posted by: Matthew at Mar 7, 2007 11:50:24 AM
There is definitely a need for some new ideas on improving the lot of Africa. Foreign aid in it's current form hasn't worked though it has been tried repeatedly for 40+ years. No reason to believe it will miraculously work anytime in the near future.
Posted by: mother theresa at Mar 7, 2007 2:09:23 PM
Perhaps the Chinese, with a smaller dose of lachrymose sentimentality, will strip out the externalities that destroy African economic progress?
Posted by: ChrisP at Mar 7, 2007 3:07:08 PM
Meaningful discussion of (sub-Saharan) Africa is impossible without referring to the cultural factors which most certainly act as brakes on GDP growth - tribalism and high rates of HIV resulting from Africans' failure to monogamise.
Cure these, you cure Africa.
Posted by: Martin at Mar 7, 2007 4:15:34 PM
Spot-on, mk.
Act-utilitarianism (the real utilitarianism) has no quibbles with long-term or complex systemic consequences (except perhaps when it comes to humans that don't yet exist, especially descendants with profoundly different psyches). Tying oneself to a rule is itself an important kind of act.
Rule-utilitarianism doesn't simply mean that sometimes tying oneself to a rule (or creating such an image) creates better consequences than treating individually each instance that would have fallen under the rule. Rather, it means that an instance of following some rule is nevertheless good even if all of the consequences, including long-term ramifications of being seen as a rule-violator, favor breaking the rule.
Posted by: J. Goard at Mar 7, 2007 4:26:00 PM
The only real hope I see of increasing the wealth of the majority of poor Africans living in poor African countries over a timescale of decades is some form of neo-colonization by the West.
Or, more probably, the East.
Posted by: Jason Malloy at Mar 7, 2007 7:43:29 PM
Africa (except for Tunisia, Libya, Djibouti) is a complete waste of time and money.
Tribalism. Ignorance. Political corruption.
The only hope is that AIDS kills everyone and they can start over.
Posted by: Dave Barnes at Mar 7, 2007 10:14:31 PM
“Some of the island nations (Mauritius in particular) are as well off as SE Asia.”
Mauritius is only ¼ African, they are essentially Indian. Seychelles is also predominantly non-African.
A list of the 15 richest African nations is about the most depressing thing you can read. Of the top 15 12 are either tiny country with some oil/diamonds that pump up per capita GDP or somehow majority non-black (in the case of South Africa the economy is non-black)
Equatorial Guinea $16,507 (oil, tiny population)
Mauritius $13,029 (Indian)
Seychelles $12,135 (mixed French, asian, arab, African)
Libya $11,354 (arab, oil)
South Africa $11,035 (white dominate economy)
Botswana $10,866 (diamonds, tiny population)
Tunisia $8,223 (arab)
Algeria $7,095 (arab, oil)
Gabon $6,977 (oil, tiny population)
Namibia $6,658 (minerals, tiny population)
Cape Verde$6,287 (creole)
Swaziland $5,181
Morocco $4,444 (arab)
Egypt $4,282 (arab)
Angola $2,829
Ghana $2,601
So we are left with Swaziland (1 million people, located almost entirely inside South Africa), Angola with some oil wealth, and Ghana as the most successful black African economy, at 2.600$ GDP.
Almost all the development aid to Africa goes to consumption, not investment. Why not just stop giving ineffective development aid (aid is 13% of African GDP today) and start giving some pain-relief consumption aid?
Dave:
I hope you die of AIDS. How about that?
Posted by: Tino at Mar 7, 2007 10:22:40 PM
The only hope is that AIDS kills everyone and they can start over.
Seriously, please go away.
Posted by: Jason Malloy at Mar 8, 2007 12:50:35 AM
The problem of AIDS is serious and affects even the most prosperous african countries.
Consider the case of Botswana, that had an average economic growth of 9% per year, from 1966 to 1999. The life expectancy in 1990 was 60 years; in 2004, 34.
And what's the problem with oil or diamonds?
Posted by: Renato Drumond at Mar 8, 2007 8:34:31 AM
Please, go to hell, Dave.
Posted by: josh at Mar 8, 2007 11:04:21 AM
C'mon Josh, it's ok if someone has an opinion differing from yours.
Relax, you give liberalism a bad name....
Posted by: JoshII at Mar 8, 2007 2:33:36 PM
There are three main factors that influence GDP: Natural resource wealth, economic freedom, and IQ. (evidence here: http://rpongett.phpwebhosting.com/gdp.html )
For sub-Saharan Africa, there are a fair number of nations with natural resource wealth, but almost all have low economic freedom, (botswana is and all have very low average IQs.
So, the fastest way to raise black african wealth would be to increase economic freedom - free trade is something we could do on our end, and we could also bribe or pressure countries into freeing up as well. Neo-colonialism as another commenter suggested would be a more effective but more extreme and costly method.
Ultimately however raising black african IQ is the surest way of ensuring long term stable income growth. It's estimated that about 1/2 of the IQ gap vs. white europeans is due to malnutrition - this can be aided with better infant nutrition, breastfeeding, and economic freedom to aid stability and reduce famine.
The other 1/2 of the gap appears to be genetic, and can only be fixed through either (a) ensuring that higher-IQ black africans reproduce relatively more than lower-IQ black africans and/or (b) as-yet theoretical gene therapy to increase IQ.
Posted by: pwyll at Mar 8, 2007 2:58:18 PM
