My Beauty Best Teacher

Over the past several weeks, the international community has been speaking out loud and clear against Africa’s poverty in the wake of the G8 summit at the Gleneagles Hotel in Scotland this week. Previously, the Africa Commission set up by the British Prime Mister Tony Blair produced a report on Africa’s poverty, the causes and what to do about it. Many reasons have been advanced for Africa’s poverty, among which are poor governance and corruption by our African governments. Africa’s governments seem to be less worried about the poverty of their people than the G8 governments. The people of the world are holding concerts and demonstrations in their streets to make Africa’s poverty history. What are we ordinary Africans, the victims of bad governance, of government corruption, of poverty, doing in response to this global awakening about our plight? I challenge you to rise up and speak out loud and clear against bad governance, against corruption, against poverty. For it is bad governance and corruption that are the sins that those who are hesitating to write off Africa’s debts, to increase aid, and to practice fair trade, are citing to deny us of the much needed reprieve, to keep us under the bondage of poverty. I challenge the African people, from Nairobi to Darker, and from Cairo to Cape Town, to hold peaceful demonstrations across the continent for good governance, against corruption and against poverty. For, if the people of the North are now demonstrating in their streets to influence the decisions of their G8 governments to seriously address our plight, why then, may I ask, cant we ordinary Africans respond, and demonstrate to influence the decisions of our governments: for good governance, against corruption and against poverty? As we keep mum, we keep dying from poverty! Come on, Africans, stand up to be counted, stand up for your lives! Our African governments are meeting in Libya, and are asking the G8 for fair trade. But they are mum about bad governance, and about corruption, the twin evils they practice with impunity to our graves! Can we ordinary Africans afford to be mum about these? Only at the risk of our lives!

By Adrian Mukhebi

One reason that I am a conservative and not a liberal is that I believe that conservative values, beliefs, and policies create a better world for everyone, including the poor. When you cut taxes, cut regulation, decrease the size of government in people's lives, encourage marriage and child-rearing, and protect the nation from threats from within and without, then everyone benefits. Not just the rich, not just corporations, not just the middle class- but everyone. Conservative policies benefit the poor, because when you unleash humanity on the problems of humanity, humanity wins. And to unleash humanity, you have to remove the chains and bonds and control over us- you have to let humans be free from government influence, to live a life of life, liberty, and property so that happiness will be available for all.

So it is with great sadness and at times anger when I see liberal policies enacted, because I know the result of those policies will be greater unemployment, greater breakdown in morals in society, greater exposure to threats from abroad, and greater poverty. The unemployment numbers have been well-document (see my post Democrats in Congress= High Unemployment). I've discussed how liberal policies have resulted in the expansion of possible threats from abroad (see my post Why Iran Getting the Bomb is Bad: The End of International Law and Decency?). And so it is with sadness and a touch of anger that I now note that liberal policies have now resulted in a dramatic expansion of the number of people in this nation who are considered living in poverty.

Under liberal policies, pushed by Democrats in state and nation government, the poverty rate in America has increased from around 12% in 2006 to 13% in 2008 to 15% in 2010 (see the graph here and the latest AP report on Census Bureau data to be released):

The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty. ...

It's unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake. The anticipated poverty rate increase--from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent--would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power.

In summary, as Democrats increase in power, especially liberal Democrats, the poverty rate increases and more people live in poverty. Wrap your minds around that, oh puny humans- Democrats=Higher Poverty

From a paper by Xavier Sala‐i‐Martin and Maxim Pinkovskiy:

The conventional wisdom that Africa is not reducing poverty is wrong. Using the methodology of Pinkovskiy and Sala‐i‐Martin (2009), we estimate income distributions, poverty rates, and inequality and welfare indices for African countries for the period 1970‐2006. We show that:

1. African poverty is falling and is falling rapidly.
2. If present trends continue, the poverty Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people with incomes less than one dollar a day will be achieved on time.
3. The growth spurt that began in 1995 decreased African income inequality instead of increasing it.
4. African poverty reduction is remarkably general: it cannot be explained by a large country, or even by a single set of countries possessing some beneficial geographical or historical characteristic. All classes of countries, including those with disadvantageous geography and history, experience reductions in poverty. In particular, poverty fell for both landlocked as well as coastal countries; for mineral‐rich as well as mineral‐poor countries; for countries with favorable or with unfavorable agriculture; for countries regardless of colonial origin; and for countries with below‐ or above median slave exports per capita during the African slave trade.

via Aid Thoughts

Rasna Warah writes (reg reqd) in the Nation:

THOSE OF US WHO HAVE worked for, or are working within, the development industry are familiar with the many poverty-reduction conferences, seminars and workshops that we have to attend as part of our work, or for what development professionals like to call “networking opportunities”...The “hottest” topics on the international development agenda these days is Africa...I mean the Africa that development professionals love to dwell on – the poverty-stricken, disease-ridden Africa that is being managed by kleptomaniacs and dictators...IN OTHER WORDS, THE AFRICA that is the raison d’etre of the international development industry, the one that makes Bono, Bob Geldof, Madonna and Angelina Jolie shed real tears...At almost all poverty-reduction seminars and conferences, the word “poverty” is used interchangeably with the word “Africa”. To some extent, this association is justified. Africa has the largest proportion of people living in extreme poverty (over 40 per cent), and 34 of the 50 poorest countries in the world are African...Countries that have managed to reduce poverty have done so through improving economic management, adding value to their products, increasing investment in infrastructure, specialising and investing in key profitable industries, making distribution of wealth and services more equitable, and ensuring that governance structures are accountable and sustainable.
Unfortunately, these issues are rarely discussed at poverty-reduction seminars and conferences.

photo courtesy of the bbc

Alex O. Awiti a fellow at the Earth Institute writes:

Entrepreneurs can catalyse sustainable economic growth by identifying market opportunities and business models that meet the needs of underserved communities in emerging economies. In essence, entrepreneurs can be true allies in poverty alleviation through market solutions, employment and wealth creation as opposed to aid and subsidies. Proponents of foreign aid often think of poverty as a technical problem they can solve using a universal blueprint or Big Plan and huge dollars in financing. If it were that simple poverty would be history. Efforts to alleviate poverty must recognise that poverty is a complex labyrinth of social, institutional, political, historical, geographical and technological factors.

CK Prahalad comments that China and India "...represent 900 million people in poverty, a larger number than the entire population of Africa. There are about 600 million in Africa who live on less than $3 per day. Why, then, do China and India evoke fear and anger, while Africa elicits pity and guilt?...Despite the magnitude of their respective poverty problems, China and India may have a chance of meeting the Millennium Development Goals established by U.N. Their economies are following the lead of other countries that have raised their populations into a middle-class economic base. For example, between 1975 and 2004, GDP per capita in South Korea increased fourfold. Over the same period, Malaysian incomes rose threefold.
On the other hand, in those decades, per capita incomes in Nigeria declined by a tenth. Why? During the period 1955-2004, the West and multilateral institutions invested more than $1 trillion in aid and subsidies in emerging economies. But poverty persists. It would seem, therefore, that we need to challenge the role of aid and subsidies in promoting sustainable economic development. If poverty cannot be eradicated with humanitarian handouts alone, what is the alternative?...The G-8, led by Tony Blair and supported by Jeffery Sachs and Bono, believe that debt relief and a doubling of aid from rich countries to poor, especially in Africa, is the way to go. A less popular alternative focuses on the involvement of the private sector in poverty alleviation through the development of market-based ecosystems.
Irrespective of which route we take, we need to build an infrastructure to deal with poverty. There is an implicit aid overhead. According to Prof. Sachs, out of every dollar of aid given to Africa, an estimated 16% went to consultants from donor countries, 26% went into emergency aid and relief operations, and 14% went into debt servicing. How much of the remaining 40% escaped corrupt officials to benefit the intended recipients is not known..."
Via NextBillion

John Githongo on corruption and the poverty equation:

There's a sense in which corruption is the No. 1 manufacturer of poverty. In particular, it is the No. 1 engine of creating inequalities in developing societies -- which is worse than poverty in and of itself. It's one thing having high levels of poverty, but it's a completely different thing to have stark inequalities caused by corruption and the conspicuous consumption that comes with it. [The latter] leads to political contradictions that can destabilize a nation or at the very least undermine democratic progress.

More here

Janvier D. Nkurunziza writes "...Africa has the highest level of poverty in the world and is one of the two regions where poverty has not declined in the past twenty years...One reason is that Africa's recent growth rates, while high by international standards, remain too low to have a substantial impact on poverty. Initial conditions are so low that only high and sustained growth levels may have a noticeable impact on poverty reduction. In no year has Africa, as a continent, achieved the 7 percent average growth rate required by the MDGs...most of the observed growth was generated by capital rather than labor-intensive sectors. If the fruit of economic growth reaches the poor through employment creation, growth in capital-intensive sectors has a limited effect on poverty reduction. Indeed, recent growth in Africa appears to have been fueled by increases in oil exports and high oil prices...Africa must strive to increase even further its growth rates and sustain them over a long period. Moreover, there must be greater balance between capital-intensive and labor-intensive activities. But encouraging labor-intensive industries, which create jobs for the poor, must not be at the expense of capital-intensive industries..."
Via SocialPolicy

Kevin Kelly provides us with a summary of Iqbal Quadir's talk at the Long Now Foundation:

Quadir presented this broad outline of development in order to give context for his belief that technology can alleviate poverty. He reminded us that 500 years ago, when the western countries were still “developing” their own societies, their political systems were no better, and often worse, than the instable corrupt regimes of many developing countries today. England had a series of kings who were impeached, arrested, ousted, or beheaded for their crimes. It was only after citizens were empowered by economic markets did the balance of power shift from the central king to decentralized citizens. All steps that devolve power away from a central authority — including laws, trade, and education — will raise democracy.

In Quadir’s view, it’s not that centralization per se creates poverty. Poverty is the natural beginning state of all societies, east or west. Rather, decentralization is the engine which removes poverty and brings wealth. To the degree that infrastructure, education, and trade can be decentralized, wealth will rise in proportion. To the degree that infrastructure, education and trade are centralized, poverty will remain.

Aneel Karnani chimes in on the debate regarding the insufficiency of Microfinance:

My analysis of the macroeconomic data suggests that although microcredit yields some noneconomic benefits, it does not significantly alleviate poverty. Indeed, in some instances microcredit makes life at the bottom of the pyramid worse. Contrary to the hype about microcredit, the best way to eradicate poverty is to create jobs and to increase worker productivity.
To understand why creating jobs, not offering microcredit, is the better solution to alleviating poverty, consider these two alternative scenarios: (1) A microfinancier lends $200 to each of 500 women so that each can buy a sewing machine and set up her own sewing microenterprise, or (2) a traditional financier lends $100,000 to one savvy entrepreneur and helps her set up a garment manufacturing business that employs 500 people. In the first case, the women must make enough money to pay off their usually high-interest loans while competing with each other in exactly the same market niche. Meanwhile the garment manufacturing business can exploit economies of scale and use modern manufacturing processes and organizational techniques to enrich not only its owners, but also its workers. As these scenarios illustrate, a surer way to ending poverty is to create jobs and to increase worker productivity, rather than investing in microfinance...[continue reading]

Bunmi Oloruntoba of Bombastic Elements asks?:

...why Africans can't speak for themselves. Well, no African I know of has that degree of media enabled celebrity to combine with advocacy in order to amass the amount of soft power it takes to leverage and access political power in ways the Bonos, Geldofs, Brajelinas, Oprahs and others can. That's why they do the talking to the donors on our behalf and what I guess we find annoying, apart from them, is the how aid to Africa, under late capitalism, works better for them rather than us.
It's time to start thinking of the poverty fighting industry like we are learning to think of Wall Street, credit default swaps and the whole industry of debt creation; like the director of "Enjoy Poverty," Renzo Martins, alludes to, Africa's poverty is now a resource and it is those who have accumulated massive amounts of soft power that can leverage this resource to, on one hand, fight the same poverty, and on the other hand do with it whatever

More here

Jen Brea reports a quote from a banker in Mozambique:

"In one board meeting for the bank we discussed the vision/mission of the bank. (The NGO side creeping into the bank.) One member of the board was the CD of a large American NGO which has been in Mozambique for years. Folks said 'alleviate poverty' or 'eliminate poverty' and such.
I suggested, 'what about making our clients wealthy?' The reaction was immediate - no. That was not what we do. It was very interesting.
In the end, we thankfully dissuaded them of using the poverty word so that we wouldn't have to tell our clients - in our own mission statement - that they were poor.
Interesting article."

Worldwrite has produced a "...film that will challenge the belief that fair trade is a panacea for poverty in the developing world. It claims that western consumers have been duped into thinking that fair trade is an effective poverty-alleviation tool, when in fact it does nothing to address the root causes of poverty...",ThirdSector."...The Bitter Aftertaste casts huge doubts on the capacity of chocoholics and shopaholics to transform the lives of farmers in the developing world through their supermarket trolleys. Shot in Ghana and the UK this hard-hitting documentary is sure to stir more than coffee and leave a bitter taste in the mouths of those who espouse fair trade as a mechanism for development. The film asks the questions often thought but never asked, does fair trade really change anything or just make Western consumers feel good? A must-see for everyone who believes the developing world deserves better..."
Via Loneliest Jukebox

Thompson Ayodele writes "...The resources needed for development in Africa can be generated within the continent. From 1970 to 2000 Africa received about U$400 billion in aid. Africa has got enough financial help from overseas. Africa’s lack of development clearly does not stem from lack of funds. More foreign aid will not eliminate poverty and launch African countries to productivity and growth...development in the continent is possible through change which must come from within Africa. If anyone really wants to help poor Africans out of the vicious circle of poverty he must promote free commerce, protect property rights, encourage openness to trade, allow markets to flourish and reduce government intervention in the economy..."He"...berates the proponents of ‘trade justice’ such as the Make Poverty History coalition who push for more barriers to trade. This would, according to Ayodele, further harm and impoverish the poor and vulnerable. “If countries should relax barriers to trade, it would kick-start entrepreneurial activities. People would discover where goods are most needed and innovate how best to produce those goods. The competition for supply would spur improvements in local production, investment and technology transfer with consequent benefits for
everyone, particularly the poor..."
Via Institute of Public Policy Analysis

What An African Woman Thinks, writes:

Those who campaign for poverty alleviation tend to believe that the solution lies with the Other. Those who support wealth creation on the other hand insist for the most part that the solution is to be found in Africa although they do acknowledge, to varying degrees, that the Other has a important supporting role to play.

continuing:

I’m gratified to see that Africa has more hope for herself than others have for her. And that Africans are contributing to the language of the debate. Whoever defines the language dictates the story, this much I know.

and quoting a Dada, J.O:

"African poverty is a poverty of the wealth creation intellect - a deficit of growth-generating instincts, knowledge and skills."