Possible answer to the Third world question

Zambia

Something came up in the Immigration thread I would like some feedback on.

One thing does strike me as odd , we are packing all these people into our ecomomys all over europe.

There must be some way we can all find a way of actually picking one country in each developing world area and really start to ramp it up. Almost like a big brother thing. Where one nation becomes a trade partner with another of simialar size and population. This would entail the western nation helping financially to bring this countrys infrastructure up to speed.

As a comprimise all of the western countries citizens would be welcome to venture to their country and set up businesses. Once the link was estabilished it would be easier for a up and coming nation to invite investment. As the deal would be done in stages and as various milestones where met the countries would increase links and drop barriers.

Goverment depts would send trainers to the country along with the aid we would provide ensuring it did not go the way of a lot of western aid into someones bank account.

The third world economy would have a lot of its citizens work in our industrys learning valuable skills.

Basically instead of spending lots of money on lots of little projects we would be spending all our money on one big project. Now this would have to be a joint agreement and there would be a lot of work. But I feel it could open up a world of oppurtunitys for both partys in the deal with the right mix.

If you are completly against giving to the developing world i can respect your opinion. But in this regard there would be a profit sharing agreement over a long period of time i would not expect to see any cash. there would be tax exceptions for irish industry setting up in these countrys. It would be in a move to allow irish companys priced out of the manufactering industry to re-open. In more efficent economys where labour and the cost of living would be cheaper.

In the same vain we would support scholarships for there students in our universitys in order for their economy to increase in start in the R&D market.

Now as you can imagine it is a framework and I am slightly dreaming a bit in thinking it might work. But I would like any suggestions.

lostexpectation

Zambia232 wrote:

Something came up in the Immigration thread I would like some feedback on.

One thing does strike me as odd , we are packing all these people into our ecomomys all over europe.

There must be some way we can all find a way of actually picking one country in each developing world area and really start to ramp it up. Almost like a big brother thing. Where one nation becomes a trade partner with another of simialar size and population. This would entail the western nation helping financially to bring this countrys infrastructure up to speed.

As a comprimise all of the western countries citizens would be welcome to venture to their country and set up businesses. Once the link was estabilished it would be easier for a up and coming nation to invite investment. As the deal would be done in stages and as various milestones where met the countries would increase links and drop barriers.

Goverment depts would send trainers to the country along with the aid we would provide ensuring it did not go the way of a lot of western aid into someones bank account.

The third world economy would have a lot of its citizens work in our industrys learning valuable skills.

Basically instead of spending lots of money on lots of little projects we would be spending all our money on one big project. Now this would have to be a joint agreement and there would be a lot of work. But I feel it could open up a world of oppurtunitys for both partys in the deal with the right mix.

If you are completly against giving to the developing world i can respect your opinion. But in this regard there would be a profit sharing agreement over a long period of time i would not expect to see any cash. there would be tax exceptions for irish industry setting up in these countrys. It would be in a move to allow irish companys priced out of the manufactering industry to re-open. In more efficent economys where labour and the cost of living would be cheaper.

In the same vain we would support scholarships for there students in our universitys in order for their economy to increase in start in the R&D market.

Now as you can imagine it is a framework and I am slightly dreaming a bit in thinking it might work. But I would like any suggestions.

ah your describing colonialism

DadaKopf

Hmmm.

Zambia232 wrote:

One thing does strike me as odd, we are packing all these people into our ecomomys all over europe.

Well, apart from this totally weird statement...

There must be some way we can all find a way of actually picking one country in each developing world area and really start to ramp it up. Almost like a big brother thing. Where one nation becomes a trade partner with another of simialar size and population. This would entail the western nation helping financially to bring this countrys infrastructure up to speed.

As a comprimise all of the western countries citizens would be welcome to venture to their country and set up businesses. Once the link was estabilished it would be easier for a up and coming nation to invite investment.

History has shown that, in many cases, the forced liberalisation of developing country economies has led to a 'crowding out' of local businesses by foreign investors. And while foreign direct investment isn't always a bad thing, it's not always good. The rationale behind foreign investment is to transfer skills, create spin-off businesses and increase savings and investment. But it turns out, companies don't want to share skills because they prefer keeping developing countries low-cost economies to keep profit margins up.

Investment, foreign or otherwise, is crucial to developing countries. But developing countries must not be forced to accept measures - such as trade liberalisation - which are not in their interests. Many developing countries already have trade barriers lower than the US and EU. Why should they give anymore when it has cost them billions - $148 billion over 20 years in sub-Saharan Africa alone.

I fail to see how 'buying total investment rights' over a country is a 'compromise' on our part.

If anything, the West owes the developing world for decades, centuries of exploitation.

As the deal would be done in stages and as various milestones where met the countries would increase links and drop barriers.

Why should developing countries be forced to drop barriers if it is not in their interests?

Goverment depts would send trainers to the country along with the aid we would provide ensuring it did not go the way of a lot of western aid into someones bank account.

Yes, this is already done. It's called 'technical assistance', and it's extremely controversial. Many donors are under intense pressure to abandon it. It has happened for years - a way for countries to pretend they're giving 'aid' when they're just paying nationals over-inflated consultancy fees. It also undermines development because it stops people of developing countries creating their own solutions to their unique problems. There is a role for technical assistance, but it is limited. Developing countries don't need experts to do things for them, they need the resources and space to work out their own solutions in their own interests.

The third world economy would have a lot of its citizens work in our industrys learning valuable skills.

Maybe. But, as I mentioned, very often not. In addition, IMF and World Bank interference (shadowing the desires of multinational corporations) have shut down many value-added industries in developing countries, returning them to colonial-style basic goods exports at rock-bottom prices. Of course, the business moves to the rich countries, so everybody's happy. Right?

Basically instead of spending lots of money on lots of little projects we would be spending all our money on one big project. Now this would have to be a joint agreement and there would be a lot of work. But I feel it could open up a world of oppurtunitys for both partys in the deal with the right mix.

You can't develop a country. Countries must develop themselves. Historically, trying to develop a country just hasn't worked because people, rightly, don't accept it. Or trust it. It's called colonialism.

If you are completly against giving to the developing world i can respect your opinion. But in this regard there would be a profit sharing agreement over a long period of time i would not expect to see any cash. there would be tax exceptions for irish industry setting up in these countrys. It would be in a move to allow irish companys priced out of the manufactering industry to re-open. In more efficent economys where labour and the cost of living would be cheaper.

Ah, so your motives aren't to do with the plight of the world's 2-plus billion poor people. You're concerned about Irish business. And you're suggesting massive subsidies to Irish business, which would probably be against WTO and EU rules anyway.

Now as you can imagine it is a framework and I am slightly dreaming a bit in thinking it might work. But I would like any suggestions.

I think you're thinking about the issues, so great. But I'm not convinced. Everyone knows that developing countries need to increase their incomes through business. But that depends on many other things besides. And your solution contains some of the worst historical mistakes of aid and foreign policy. I think the measures would be counterproductive. Mostly because it smacks of neo-colonialism.

I know this is John O'Shea's argument. And I really think he's wrong about this, as with many other things.

Judt

I think one of the problems we have in the west when dealing with the developing world is that we like to raise large amounts of money, ship it off and say "Well aren't we doing some good here, let's go for a pint." Ireland is, per capita, one of the best in the world for both government and public aid to the developing world. However, building a well or a school is no good if, as periodically happens in Africa, the government falls over and a civil war erupts and the school is burned down, the children press ganged into rebel or government service.

I think that rather than talking exclusively about economic aid (and rememeber, Ireland is one of the only countries to reach the UN goal of 0.7% of the annual budget spent on overseas development aid) we need to talk about how to create sustainable democracies in Africa. Even in the halfway stable countries like Kenya you have government ministers driving around in cars costing tens of thousands whilst there's a drought on.

There's nothing judgemental or racist in saying that the Africans have, for the most part, had no luck with self-governance since the colonial powers pulled out - largely because of the actions of the colonial powers, but we could play the blame game all day and it'd get us nowhere, so lets not. If you want to partner with a third world country, start by showing them how to do government.

Time Magazine

It already exists in a diluted form. It's not a one-for-one basis, because three quarters of the world, about 150 countries, are classified as less-developed. Each developed country informally "partners" with about five countries and focuses its assistance on these countries.

Good idea, though .

DadaKopf

Judt wrote:

Ireland is, per capita, one of the best in the world for both government and public aid to the developing world.

(and rememeber, Ireland is one of the only countries to reach the UN goal of 0.7% of the annual budget spent on overseas development aid)

Ireland hasn't reached 0.7% GNP, and is average in its political commitment to overseas aid.


The figures are from 2004, but little has changed in 2006.

I think that rather than talking exclusively about economic aid [...] we need to talk about how to create sustainable democracies in Africa. Even in the halfway stable countries like Kenya you have government ministers driving around in cars costing tens of thousands whilst there's a drought on.

That's also an image of Africa - and the entire developing world, in fact - that is changing. Changing with the efforts of Southern civil societies and governments. There are many positive examples coming out of the developing world - leaders being prosecuted for embezzlement, and so on. But when you think about it, when the UK bribes leaders in Tanzania so it can sell them an over-priced radar system, even through 'anti-corruption' is at the centre of the UK's aid programme, much of the problem is the rich countries supplying problems to the poor world.

There's nothing judgemental or racist in saying that the Africans have, for the most part, had no luck with self-governance since the colonial powers pulled out - largely because of the actions of the colonial powers, but we could play the blame game all day and it'd get us nowhere, so lets not.

The picture is very complex, with foreign and domestic factors all playing their parts. Don't forget, the 'developing world' is not just Africa - it's also Latin America, Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. Everywhere you see traces of exploitation by Western interests in cahoots with local agents.

If you want to partner with a third world country, start by showing them how to do government.

I'm sure there are enough people in developing countries to figure that out for themselves. One size doesn't fit all.

purple'n'gold

ah your describing colonialism

Colonialism is a better option than starving to death while some tin pot dictator uses aid money that is supposed to feed his people to enhance his Swiss bank account.

Victor

purplengold wrote:

ah your describing colonialism

Colonialism is a better option than starving to death while some tin pot dictator uses aid money that is supposed to feed his people to enhance his Swiss bank account.

One is merely an extension of the other.

Zambia

Some great ideas above and by packing people into european economys is that several posters said stuff along the lines of why do these people all want to come here. Well the answer was that life was better here. So the overriding idea was why dont we export some of here there.

Yes this does stink of colonialism , it has several of the markers of it but when the colonial powers pulled out they left these country with very little in the way of assistance and in some case they just left...

Why should developing countries be forced to drop barriers if it is not in their interests?

This is a partnership unless we met our tergets they wouldnt

DADAKOPF wrote:

Yes, this is already done. It's called 'technical assistance', and it's extremely controversial. Many donors are under intense pressure to abandon it. It has happened for years - a way for countries to pretend they're giving 'aid' when they're just paying nationals over-inflated consultancy fees. It also undermines development because it stops people of developing countries creating their own solutions to their unique problems. There is a role for technical assistance, but it is limited. Developing countries don't need experts to do things for them, they need the resources and space to work out their own solutions in their own interests.

With respect I disagree with everything here I have had the good fortune to see many of these consultants work and they earn every penny.

A lot of the time their own solutions are in the interest of the person that comes up with the solutions. That is why these advisors went over in the first place. In a climate of look after number one this happens.

DADAKOPF wrote:

If anything, the West owes the developing world for decades, centuries of exploitation.

Can you suggest a way to re-dress this ?

DADAKOPF wrote:

Investment, foreign or otherwise, is crucial to developing countries. But developing countries must not be forced to accept measures - such as trade liberalisation - which are not in their interests. Many developing countries already have trade barriers lower than the US and EU. Why should they give anymore when it has cost them billions - $148 billion over 20 years in sub-Saharan Africa alone.

No-one should be forcing anyone to lower anything???

DADAKOPF wrote:

Ah, so your motives aren't to do with the plight of the world's 2-plus billion poor people. You're concerned about Irish business. And you're suggesting massive subsidies to Irish business, which would probably be against WTO and EU rules anyway.

Hang on :eek: If this happens now anyway the industry will be moving to one of these nations i am merely suggesting we have a preferential one. If may well be against regulations so we would have to work within that.

Thanks for the feedback much appericiated , even if it is to call it colonial trash

DadaKopf

With respect I disagree with everything here I have had the good fortune to see many of these consultants work and they earn every penny.

A lot of the time their own solutions are in the interest of the person that comes up with the solutions. That is why these advisors went over in the first place. In a climate of look after number one this happens.

Sure, they work hard. But you have to think about the impact that this can have in certain contexts. Where a foreign 'expert' is filling skills gaps, for example, there sould be strict requirements on that person to transfer skills; and terms of reference for experts should also compel 'experts' to learn from the local he/she is teaching since there is never a one-size-fits-all approach, and more than one way to do things. Otherwise, there is an abuse of power between the 'expert' and the local, reproducing the oppressor/oppressed dynamic of colonialism, still alive today.

The Asian Tiger economies developed not because of free trade, but because of enormous amounts aid and investment (driven by cold war strategy), which under the political protection of a strong Japan in the 1970s, let countries like South Korea and Taiwan develop their own solutions to their own problems. Many of these were not 'orthodox' by Western standards, but they worked. They went through a crucial learning process without excessive foreign interference. But the same may not be said of Africa.

If by 'developing world' you mean sub-Saharan Africa, then its problems lie rooted in, as you rightly say, colonialism, and continued interference by the West thereafter. However, it is also in the way colonialism and post-colonialism have shaped domestic politics. Matthew Lockwood, a well-regarded expert on aid and sub-Saharan Africa wrote:

The answer to why African states have not been as effective as those of east Asia lies in political history.

A colonial inheritance of indirect rule and the scramble for power at independence meant that political leaders relied on dispensing patronage to local chiefs to hold together national alliances. The resulting system of patronage politics has produced leaders more interested in maintaining a flow of resources for elite consumption than in broader development, with oil and mining multinationals happy to facilitate a "spoils politics" in the worst cases. It has also eroded the ability of African states to manage economic challenges. Such politics has survived multi-party reforms of the 1990s, and is entrenched even in "good performers" such as Ghana and Tanzania. In the rare cases where African governments have led successful development and poverty reduction, such as Botswana, or Uganda in the 1990s, leaders have suppressed patronage politics.

[...]

In reality, donors can play only a minor role in a transformation where African politicians will have the central part. The international community should focus its efforts on supporting the emergence of more developmental politics, while making life a lot harder for spoils politics regimes.

[...]

[T]here is compelling case for a basic floor of aid to Africa. But further aid should be allocated using simple but strict criteria. Where anti-patronage politics leaders are achieving poverty reduction, they should be supported generously and without conditions.

url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/g8/story/0,13365,1513562,00.html]Source[/url

Lockwood's and Alex van de Walle's key argument is that continued interference in African countries' politics and policies, and the way it interacts with domestic political and social structures, have blocked the development learning process, which developed and medium-developed countries now take for granted. Think about what Ireland might be like if we transferred all our government decision-making power to the IMF - where might we be now? We had the space to make mistakes, learn from them, and to ignore the IMF's advice, and get loadza money from the EEC. Of course, people advised the Irish governments of the day, but the power dynamic was much different to that in sub-Saharan Africa, among the most vulnerable countries, and people on the planet.

No-one should be forcing anyone to lower anything???

Read what I said. I said "developing countries should not be forced ... to accept measures that are not in their interests". I do think rich countries should lower their barriers, but they do what they like. I haven't a problem with civil societies pressuring governments into certain actions - that's only moral and democratic. What isn't OK is rich countries circumventing and undermining developing countries' own political and democratic processes, and elites doing the same in developing countries.

purple'n'gold

Victor wrote:

One is merely an extension of the other.

Whether one is an extension of the other or not is immaterial to people starving to death. They are not interested in intellectual arguments. All that matters to them is getting enough to eat.

Zambia

purplengold wrote:

Whether one is an extension of the other or not is immaterial to people starving to death. They are not interested in intellectual arguments. All that matters to them is getting enough to eat.

Unfortunatly my plan does not assist anyone under a tin pot dictator. As the goverment would have to agree to everything both parties decided on.

I do have a plan for them but no-one would like it.

purple'n'gold

It’s a sad situation really. You have a half mad despot like Mugabe who turned a thriving agriculture based economy into a basket case, and the only country that can really influence him (outside of the former colonial power invading) South Africa not intervening because it would look like one black government criticizing another.

Akrasia

The best way to help the 'third world' is to cancel their debt and let them sort themselves out. the constant interference from western institutions has been a major cause in the poverty they still face.

Zambia

Akrasia wrote:

The best way to help the 'third world' is to cancel their debt and let them sort themselves out. the constant interference from western institutions has been a major cause in the poverty they still face.

So would you cancel Zimbabwe under Mugabes Debt?

These countrys borrowed money and now the just want to have it all forgotten about I see the piont in doing so but there are no clear indications that future borrowings would be handled any better. At least I dont see any.

Did the west impose poverty on the Developing world, or are we just not doing enough to stop it?

Akrasia

Zambia232 wrote:

So would you cancel Zimbabwe under Mugabes Debt?

These countrys borrowed money and now the just want to have it all forgotten about I see the piont in doing so but there are no clear indications that future borrowings would be handled any better. At least I dont see any.

Did the west impose poverty on the Developing world, or are we just not doing enough to stop it?

these are countries that had a lot of natural resources that were stolen by the west under colonialism and now capitalism.

They were given loans with strict conditions such as capping expenditure on health and education while privatising state companies and removing trade barriers. These policies were disasterous. the crippling debt these countries have been left with are the fault of the west, and we should stop this ridiculous system where the 'developing countries' pay more in interest repayments to banks than they receive in aid. It's just another way of taking money from the worlds tax payers and giving it to corporations and the wealthiest 1%

We keep interfering with these people because #father knows best' and the academic consensus is that most 'development work' is either completely ineffectual or worse, counter productive and damaging to the people they are trying to help.

And I say this as a masters student currently taking courses on international development at the best development university in Europe.

Zambia

Akrasia wrote:

We keep interfering with these people because #father knows best' and the academic consensus is that most 'development work' is either completely ineffectual or worse, counter productive and damaging to the people they are trying to help.

And I say this as a masters student currently taking courses on international development at the best development university in Europe.

Ok are you saying most development work is counter productive , could you elaborate on what these counter productive schemes are ?

So would you cancel Zimbabwes debt as it stands?

DadaKopf

academic consensus is that most 'development work' is either completely ineffectual or worse, counter productive and damaging to the people they are trying to help

There's no 'academic consensus' on this at all! The 'consensus' is more like, 'some aid is good, some aid is bad'.

Where are you studying?

InFront

most 'development work' is either completely ineffectual or worse, counter productive and damaging to the people they are trying to help.

Yeah I'm a bit surprised by this comment too. A very significant bulk of Irish ODA is in emergency humanitarian aid, another big bulk goes to UN Development Agencies. Altogether about €150m, is that right? Is that part of the problem?

I know there have been issues over the adequacy of staff numbers for the audit and evaluation of its overseas aid programmes by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I'm just curious to know where exactly, in what situations, you think our overseas development contribution is wasted or counter productive?

DadaKopf

Figures on the Irish Aid site.

Akrasia

Well, the history of modern Development is one of the west trying to force 'industrialisation' and 'urbanisation' onto the 'developing world' because of the mid 20th century realisation that 'poverty' was a 'threat to democracy'. So 'Development' was taken up by states and institutions (like the World Bank and the IMF).

Huge scale 'structural adjustment' programs aimed at forcing economic reforms had extremely negative consequences for most if not all of the countries where they were implemented. Mass privatisations, elimination of trade barriers, reductions in government public services spending and all of this was financed by huge loans which can never be paid back and which are still a massive drain on the developing world today despite numerous pledges by governments and banks to cancel these unfair debts.

Smaller scale development projects and programs have usually yielded results that were far below the targets expected, and in many cases, the projects had the effect of reducing the standard of living of the local people who the development workers were trying to help. Attempts to encourage modernisation of agriculture or fishing at the local level have a nasty habit of backfiring because the developement institutions refuse to take into account the local knowledge and traditional skills that indigenous people have built up over generations and adapted to their specific circumstances. Potato farmers in the Peruvian Andes for example, were strongly encouraged to switch to 'Improved' scientific strains of Potatoes to replace the local varieties and within 3 years the average yield for the crops started to fall because they were unsuited to the specific environmental conditions of the local area.

Similar stories are everywhere. Maize farmers driven off the land after they were encouraged to use new varieties which required the use of pesticides and fertilisers that were never needed before and which local farmers believed to be poisoning the soil.

Small scale agriculture has been displaced in favour of commercial farming with the associated levels of mass displacement of the former peasants. Fishing villages have been destroyed by 'development aid' that 'modernised the fleet and processing sector' but disenfranchised the whole community who had been living a sustainable lifestyle for generations.

Overall, the biggest problem with the development industry is the overwhelming arrogance of the institutions and politicians who completely disregard the wishes and needs of the people they are experimenting on. They apply foreign standards that don't take into consideration the cultural skills customs and knowledge. There is an assumption that 'development is a linear process' and everything that is less 'modern' than western technology and industry is inherently inferior when this isn't the case at all.

Mislabeling of indigenous people as 'underdeveloped' just because they have a different kind of economy that isn't entirely based on wages and consumption is the root of the development problem.

(And this is even before we get into the blatent political interference of states trying to increase their political influence and control strategic resources under the guise of 'development' assistance)

DadaKopf

Where are you studying?

Akrasia

sorry.

I'm just on erasmus at Wageningen University in the Netherlands as part of a masters from NUIG in Community Development.

So far I have taken 3 different courses with 6 different professors, all of whom are experienced development workers in places like Sri lanka, Brazil, China and South Africa, and all of them have a very critical assessment of how international development has affected global poverty and standards of living in 'developing countries'

Zambia

Ok so from what I can gather we should just leave them all alone ...

Could you suggest benefical ways then as your initial entry just said we should eliminate the debts these countries have outstanding.

Should we stop training doctors and nurses.
Should we stop training enginners
Should we stop sending teachers over to teach.
Should we stop sending conservationists over.

Granted some efforts have failed , but to smear most projects is wrong.

DadaKopf

Akrasia, don't get me wrong, I'm extremely critical of the 'aid industry'. Incidentally, 'The Aid Industry' by Raffer and Singer is an excellent read, if you haven't read it already.

Aid does also yield positive results, though. The question, surely, is how to improve aid so that bad things don't happen. And, ultimately, how to bring about a situation so that foreign aid is obsolete.

Akrasia

Zambia232 wrote:

Ok so from what I can gather we should just leave them all alone ...

Could you suggest benefical ways then as your initial entry just said we should eliminate the debts these countries have outstanding.

Should we stop training doctors and nurses.
Should we stop training enginners
Should we stop sending teachers over to teach.
Should we stop sending conservationists over.

Granted some efforts have failed , but to smear most projects is wrong.

We should stop imposing our flawed solutions onto the 'developing world' as if we know what's best for them. We should stop subordinating those people to the 'development professionals' and state diplomats.

We should stop trying to teach them how to be westerners and allow them to create their own society as equal partners in the global community, and not as though they're children who need to be educated.

As long as the biggest actors in development aid are large institutions, governments and religious organisations, then the agendas of the donors will have more influence than the needs of the aid recipients.

As long as there is crippling debt, these 'developing countries' are forced to accept aid. Debt and aid are a control mechanism that world political and business leaders are extremely reluctant to relinquish. (remember those pledges of debt reduction that followed the 'Live 8' concerts in 2005? empty promises. hardly any of those pledges have been honoured)

Development aid is different from emergency aid which is meant to deal with immediate disasters such as drought or floods. Emergency aid is an essential humanitarian tool that we should put far more resources into. Development aid needs to be seriously overhauled because it has an extremely low rate of success and worse, the 'unintended consequences' of failed experimental programs can have devastating effects

DadaKopf

So we're (broadly) in agreement, then.

Have you any links on the ineffectiveness of aid, there?

Akrasia

DadaKopf wrote:

So we're (broadly) in agreement, then.

Have you any links on the ineffectiveness of aid, there?

there are a few case studies on-line but i can't log on to my account from outside the college network. I'll post a few links up tomorrow if you like

DadaKopf

If they're journal articles, I won't be able to access them. PM me if you want my email. Ta.

Zambia

I would be interested to see how you would assist a country like for example Zimbabwe after Mugabes demise.

Not joking at all, slowly coming around to some of your ideas.

DadaKopf

How would you assist Zimbabweans?