Overpopulation is holding back development

The Saint

DadaKopf wrote:

What do you mean by "good governance"?

Governments that are not corrupt, that don't embezzle the country's cash, that are preferably democratic, that work for the good of the people and not themselves, etc...

The Saint

gbh wrote:

I agree with you that better trade conditions would help. But honestly that is outside the power (mostly) of the government of Uganda.

Largely the point I am making is that governments like Uganda's need aid from countries like Ireland to cover the costs of healthcare and education of their people. Now if this year you had 1 million people needing clean water and in ten years you have maybe 1.5million needing clean water then Uganda is going to spend all its money on improving infrastruture just to maintain subsistence and little on education which really lifts people out of poverty. So I really actually see increasing population in countries like Uganda as a burden on the Irish taxpayer as much as anyone else.

Uganda can and does seek to improve its trade realtions as do other countries through groups such as the G77. People in the rich countries might also be able to have some impact by getting their governments to implement better and more equitable trade realtions with the developing world. I don't think Uganda should have to implement population control measures because of bad terms of trade imposed by rich countries. Why don't rich countries give fairer trade terms instead then developing countries could develop faster and put in place the necessary infrastructure to deal with its population growth?

bonkey

The Saint wrote:

Governments that are not corrupt, that don't embezzle the country's cash, that are preferably democratic, that work for the good of the people and not themselves, etc...

Do they exist anywhere?

gbh

The Saint wrote:

Uganda can and does seek to improve its trade realtions as do other countries through groups such as the G77. People in the rich countries might also be able to have some impact by getting their governments to implement better and more equitable trade realtions with the developing world. I don't think Uganda should have to implement population control measures because of bad terms of trade imposed by rich countries. Why don't rich countries give fairer trade terms instead then developing countries could develop faster and put in place the necessary infrastructure to deal with its population growth?

Well cause Uganda isnt strategically important to rich countries and that really is how they place importance on trade. If you waited for the rich countries to help Uganda to trade itself out of poverty it will take a while.

At the same time you have to be wary that Uganda doesnt for example change its production over night from cereal for its people to the production of coffee or tobacco for export. It has to have something to trade. Japan and the Asian tigers produce cheap electrics, toys, clothes, etc and that is why they benefit from trade. Not so straight forward for Uganda.

But I agree lifting a country out of poverty takes a lot of steps not just managing population growth. Good governance is one of them of course but not the only step. Good education is another but again is no good unless you attract FDI and can lead to a brain drain.

The Saint

bonkey wrote:

Do they exist anywhere?

Not necessarily but the government of Tanzania is better than that of Mugabe. While not every government is perfect there is a spectrum.

The Saint

gbh wrote:

Well cause Uganda isnt strategically important to rich countries and that really is how they place importance on trade. If you waited for the rich countries to help Uganda to trade itself out of poverty it will take a while.

It should at least be given the opportunity to trade on a level playing field with the rich countries and not implement policies that retard development. This would at least increase the rate of development. Development anywhere takes time and using that as an excuse for rich countries to do nothing is pretty bad. I still don’t understand why poor countries should have to implement population controlling measures because of the policies of rich countries. Surely the first thing to do would be to change those policies so development can take place.

gbh wrote:

At the same time you have to be wary that Uganda doesn’t for example change its production over night from cereal for its people to the production of coffee or tobacco for export. It has to have something to trade. Japan and the Asian tigers produce cheap electrics, toys, clothes, etc and that is why they benefit from trade. Not so straight forward for Uganda.

Yes that was the problem that poor countries had in the 80's when structural adjustment programmes were implemented. Farms that were used for subsistence farming was used for commercial farming for exports and people starved. If poor countries can trade excess produce at fair prices then they will be able to diversify to commercial cash crops that will generate more income. The countries can them diversify into processing which can then help lead to industrialisation. The Asian tigers undertook a different for of development than many countries and certainly than Africa can undertake. Development actually took place there under colonialism whereas in Africa it did not. They used policies of import substitution and protected and financed fledgling industries and only opened their economies up to the international market when they were able to compete. Korea actually undertook intentional development under a military regime that ceded power when development was complete.

newby.204

Akrasia wrote:

Yep.

And education for all. (well, quality education, not religious based education that just perpetuates the patriarchal attitude that suppresses women)

If we spent a tiny fraction of the money we spend on tools to blow each other up on education instead, the global poverty situation might actually start to improve instead of continuing to worsen.

Excuse the cynicism, with ref to the eboldened text, that would mean that the rich wouldnt get richer wouldnt it , and by rich i mean international arms trade, largely, but not exclusive to, the US

silverharp

Victor wrote:

3.4% GDP growth compunded over 43 years would result in the economy being 407% its current size, thereby maintaining the current standard of living. Actual GDP growth is well in excess of that.

That's a hell of an assumption, peak oil will thow a spanner in the works. I can't see a scanario where global population and the global economy can have any positive growth over a 40 year period if fossil fuel depletion could be in excess of 1% per year from 2010.

DadaKopf

the saint wrote:

Good governence and more equitable prade relations would help in development in the third world. The structural adjustment programmes and loan conditionalities imposed by the IMF and World Bank in the 1980's also have a lot to answer for. If rich countries believe in free trade then they should implement it not forcing poor countries to open up their economies while protecting their own.

This is quite a contradiction. While it's the case that IMF and World Bank conditionalities did more harm than good, they have not been done away with. Quite the opposite: 'good governance' conditions attached to aid has become the 'new conditionality', or 'political conditionalities' which not only replace the old economic conditionalities, but actually extend them. In other words, the World Bank has used talk of 'good governance' to conceal the fact that it's business as usual, and then some. The reason this is working as an excuse is because people have only a vague understanding of what 'good governance' actually means in this context. It's pure optics that has a very particular effect in strengthening the power of international aid donors.

the saint wrote:

Governments that are not corrupt, that don't embezzle the country's cash, that are preferably democratic, that work for the good of the people and not themselves, etc...

Does this exist anywhere? Who is to say any system is the 'correct one'? And while you're on a corruption rant, why not remember the fact that there's two sides to corruption: someone who accepts a bribe, and someone who gives it. What about Irish companies involved in bribing African people? What about the $1 trillion laundered each year through Western banks? The developed world supplies this corruption, too, you know.

The Saint

DadaKopf wrote:

This is quite a contradiction. While it's the case that IMF and World Bank conditionalities did more harm than good, they have not been done away with. Quite the opposite: 'good governance' conditions attached to aid has become the 'new conditionality', or 'political conditionalities' which not only replace the old economic conditionalities, but actually extend them. In other words, the World Bank has used talk of 'good governance' to conceal the fact that it's business as usual, and then some. The reason this is working as an excuse is because people have only a vague understanding of what 'good governance' actually means in this context. It's pure optics that has a very particular effect in strengthening the power of international aid donors.

Where's the contradiction? I never stated that conditionalities have been done away with and I am quite aware that these conditionalities are being used as a weapon by the rich countries throught the Bretton Woods institutions. You can't really expect this to be any different to when these institutions operate on a dollar-a-vote basis. Obviously rich countries are going to seek to retain or enhance their position. I never stated that good governance should be determined by these institutions and should be used as a weapon.

DadaKopf wrote:

Does this exist anywhere? Who is to say any system is the 'correct one'? And while you're on a corruption rant, why not remember the fact that there's two sides to corruption: someone who accepts a bribe, and someone who gives it. What about Irish companies involved in bribing African people? What about the $1 trillion laundered each year through Western banks? The developed world supplies this corruption, too, you know.

I'm not saying that it exist everywhere or anywhere, I'm just stating that this kind of situation (or something close to it) is a lot more ideal than outright corruption. I used the example above of comparing Tanzania and Zimbabwe. There is obviously a spectrum and I think being on the cleaner side of it would aid development a lot more. I'm aware that rich countries have a role to play in not allowing their people from instigating this corruption and perhaps they should act more strongly in stopping it. Wowever this is probably not in their 'national interests' as we saw with the UK/Saudi/BAE farce.

gbh

I think the general public in the west dont see the full picture and only the surface of what goes on. While we see G8 meetings and pledges of support etc which has yet largely to materialise, the same politicians sign deals to exploit the resources of the developing world.

You cant really trust western politicians on this issue because they always put the interests of their own country first. After all running a country is similar to running a corporation and if you dont make a profit from your business then you wont be in the job very long.

DadaKopf

Where's the contradiction? I never stated that conditionalities have been done away with and I am quite aware that these conditionalities are being used as a weapon by the rich countries throught the Bretton Woods institutions.

This is the contradiction: you say economic conditionalities were bad for developing countries, then call for 'good governance' which is in effect the same thing.

Good Governance, as used here, is the good governance of policymakers, which is designed to engineer exactly what you oppose. Moreover, 'good governance' does not equal 'democracy' in the sense of changing how 'power is distributed across state and society' (the World Bank's words). Good governance in their parlence means 'minimal democracy with elite rule' designed to prise open developing countries' markets to international forces when they're not ready.

So, please, stop using this term. Use another one.

The Saint

DadaKopf wrote:

This is the contradiction: you say economic conditionalities were bad for developing countries, then call for 'good governance' which is in effect the same thing.

There is no contradiction. You're assuming that I'm taking the World Banks position on conditionalities based on good governance. I'm not. I'm just merely stating that 'good governence' would help development not that is a conditionality. I'm not saying that the World Banks definition of good governance is right. It's a subjective term but I was using it quite narrowly to mean lack of corruption and preferably democracy.

DadaKopf wrote:

Good Governance, as used here, is the good governance of policymakers, which is designed to engineer exactly what you oppose. Moreover, 'good governance' does not equal 'democracy' in the sense of changing how 'power is distributed across state and society' (the World Bank's words). Good governance in their parlence means 'minimal democracy with elite rule' designed to prise open developing countries' markets to international forces when they're not ready.

So, please, stop using this term. Use another one.

Just because you are taking good governance to mean conditionaly base rules by the World Bank and IMF doesn't mean that I have to. I've already described what I mean by good governance. I don't know whay you keep assuming that I'm taking the BWI definition of it. I'm well aware that development can take place without demeocracy. I even pointed to the example to South Korea that developed under a military regime. China is another example. I just believe that democracy is preferable. We are talking about population growth and sustainabilty. Thats why I brought up the case of India in another thread as famines haven't occoured since independence as the often did under colonial rule.

Once again, I'm not using the term good governence as the IMF and World Bank use it. You're assuming that. I'm not going to stop using the term as I don't see why these institutions should have the monopoly of the meaning of good governance. As I said before, it's a subjective term. I'm just giving my view.

The Saint

Just thought I'd post a UN definition on good governence to show what I'm getting at and to show that the IMF and World Bank don't have a monopoly on the term.

Participation

Participation by both men and women is a key cornerstone of good governance. Participation could be either direct or through legitimate intermediate institutions or representatives. It is important to point out that representative democracy does not necessarily mean that the concerns of the most vulnerable in society would be taken into consideration in decision making. Participation needs to be informed and organized. This means freedom of association and expression on the one hand and an organized civil society on the other hand.

Rule of law

Good governance requires fair legal frameworks that are enforced impartially. It also requires full protection of human rights, particularly those of minorities. Impartial enforcement of laws requires an independent judiciary and an impartial and incorruptible police force.

Transparency

Transparency means that decisions taken and their enforcement are done in a manner that follows rules and regulations. It also means that information is freely available and directly accessible to those who will be affected by such decisions and their enforcement. It also means that enough information is provided and that it is provided in easily understandable forms and media.

Responsiveness

Good governance requires that institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders within a reasonable timeframe.

Consensus oriented

There are several actors and as many view points in a given society. Good governance requires mediation of the different interests in society to reach a broad consensus in society on what is in the best interest of the whole community and how this can be achieved. It also requires a broad and long-term perspective on what is needed for sustainable human development and how to achieve the goals of such development. This can only result from an understanding of the historical, cultural and social contexts of a given society or community.

Equity and inclusiveness

A society’s well being depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do not feel excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires all groups, but particularly the most vulnerable, have opportunities to improve or maintain their well being.

Effectiveness and efficiency

Good governance means that processes and institutions produce results that meet the needs of society while making the best use of resources at their disposal. The concept of efficiency in the context of good governance also covers the sustainable use of natural resources and the protection of the environment.

Accountability

Accountability is a key requirement of good governance. Not only governmental institutions but also the private sector and civil society organizations must be accountable to the public and to their institutional stakeholders. Who is accountable to whom varies depending on whether decisions or actions taken are internal or external to an organization or institution. In general an organization or an institution is accountable to those who will be affected by its decisions or actions. Accountability cannot be enforced without transparency and the rule of law.

Húrin

Akrasia wrote:

If we spent a tiny fraction of the money we spend on tools to blow each other up on education instead, the global poverty situation might actually start to improve instead of continuing to worsen.

That's right. Earth is capable of providing food for all. It just has to be cultivated correctly. If more money were diverted from military budgets to advancing the third world methods of agriculture (there are vast areas which have not been touched by the green revolution) everyone would be better off.

PS is Uganda a Catholic country?

Victor

Uganda isn't as dependant on other countries for oil - it doesn't have a severe winter.

gbh wrote:

At the same time you have to be wary that Uganda doesnt for example change its production over night from cereal for its people to the production of coffee or tobacco for export.

Coffee is Uganda's major export.

From www.cia.gov

Agriculture - products: coffee, tea, cotton, tobacco, cassava (tapioca), potatoes, corn, millet, pulses, cut flowers; beef, goat meat, milk, poultry

Industries: sugar, brewing, tobacco, cotton textiles; cement, steel production

Exports - commodities: coffee, fish and fish products, tea, cotton, flowers, horticultural products; gold

Imports - commodities: capital equipment, vehicles, petroleum, medical supplies; cereals

So while they seem to get a second slice in processing some agricultural products, like the cotton and which can be used locally there does seem to be a dependence on cash crops - coffee, tea, tobacco and cut flowers - at the expense of staples.

gbh

I think the problem is that if you don't control population growth or give people family planning options then you get a situation where a lot of children, maybe 2 or 3 out of 5 don't survive childhood and generally the quality of life is difficult for everyone.. you get high density cities, poor water and sanitation which in turn causes more diseases. Less people might mean better civilian infrastructure and cleaner water etc. You can't really call a government a bad government when it doesn't have the resources to deal with increasing populations.

gbh

H&#250 wrote: »

That's right. Earth is capable of providing food for all. It just has to be cultivated correctly. If more money were diverted from military budgets to advancing the third world methods of agriculture (there are vast areas which have not been touched by the green revolution) everyone would be better off.

PS is Uganda a Catholic country?

45% catholic I think ... but Catholicism is fairly pervasive throughout Africa and more people go to church I would say in Uganda than in maybe Britain where attendence is about 5%. I think the church has more influence in Africa than in any other continent.

Also, I don't agree that the world is able to provide food for all. Yes if everyone farmed perfectly etc. But what about cutting down rainforests for agriculture and wood resources, desertification caused by over-grazing and fresh water pollution caused by fertiliser and other chemical runoffs? Already we are seeing problems with over fishing in the Atlantic where cod stocks have collapsed so I don't think you can argue that the world has an infinite capacity to feed it's people.