So why do people still starve despite the fact that there seems to be plenty enough food on the planet to take care of everyone? I have no idea. My exposure to this area of development is pretty high, I have numerous friends that work in the agricultural development sector and am constantly around differing views on the topic. Some mimic those laid out by Paarlberg, that technology and industrialization are the keys to success and that one need not look further than the Green Revolution for proof. Others contend that Jenny Edkins is more in line with what the real root causes of hunger are, which is that there are a select group of elites that tremendously benefit from the manipulation and control of global, regional, and local food markets for their own benefit. As someone that has read “Why Nations Fail’, I found myself fairly convinced that systemic failures within a society are exactly that, failures of the system. Otherwise known as institutional failures.
In my view, there is no reason for a continent the size of Africa’s, with the abundance of natural resources that it contains, should be subjected to the gargantuan undernourishment it suffers from. I tend to view that situation, and the unequal access to, and distribution of land in Latin America in equal terms. That there are major motivating factors, by small groups of people, that push to maintain the status quo power structure. When a person or group of individuals have unchecked, unregulated, systemically ingrained advantages over the majority, there is very little hope in altering that structure without some sort of large scale destruction and rebuilding effort.
There are numerous factors at play that make the probability of such a scenario unlikely. Domestically, the power brokers and resource extractors have a number of tools at their disposal to prevent such a redesign from taking place. The ability to create, essentially what amounts to fiefdoms, through payoffs and the threat of force is extremely effective. Regionally and internationally, the situation becomes murkier. Although western democracies may publicly proclaim the need for open and equal societies, the history of the United States is littered with examples of strange, and often outright contradictory to this proclamation, partnerships in the name of stability. The point I’m trying to make, to put it succinctly, is that the deck is often stacked against the worlds poor, and those in power stand to considerably benefit in the short term at the expense of the most vulnerable. What else could possibly explain the seeming abundance of global food supply, with a seventh of the population critically malnourished?
I don’t think I am fully in the institutionalist camp, but I do think there is much power that can be wielded from an informed, active, and empowered electorate. In “Why Nations Fail”, the authors point to a number of examples of how institutions can dramatically benefit or hinder successful progression. One such example is patent laws. Without the protection of original ideas and the monetary incentive to pursue said idea into a state of production, innovation is hampered, if not totally absent. The same can be said for private property rights, access to credit, and a secure banking system. All are reasonable examples of how institutions can protect or harm a populations motivation to develop. Recently the US government has turned to public/private partnerships in the development community. The explanation is that there is a realization that neither on its own can provide enough incentive to overcome the rampant corruption in developing nations. I am by no means a market liberalist, however, I do think that the desire for multinational corporations expansion into developing markets can play a significant role in the reduction of world hunger. After all, as the theory goes, if a population is critically malnourished then they won’t have the capacity to purchase one’s product. For companies to do business, there needs to be some sort of assurance of stability and regularity. Although this can come in many forms, as alluded to earlier, one must hope that the US government can push for more openness and transparency if for no other reason than to level the international playing field and make our products that much more competitive.
No comments:
Post a Comment