Christine Chun-Week 4 Response

As the UNAIDS article shows, HIV/AIDS is a large issue in Sub-Saharan Africa. The development field seems to associate the virus with underdevelopment and billions of dollars go into HIV/AIDS treatment. This is not necessarily wrong, but these readings reveal that although the environment of developing countries may increase the chances of HIV/AIDS, it still does not excuse the fact that in general, Africans are very sexually active consensually. According to Pisani, how sex is viewed in a culture, and not poverty, is the real issue. She gives examples with countries like Bangladesh and Guinea who are developing countries, but yet do not have a high HIV/AIDS prevalence rate such as South Africa. Reading Chapter 4 of her book made me realize that I too have generalized all African countries of having high rates of HIV/AIDS because they were poor. She also does a great job of explaining the basics of how HIV is spread. Points from Pisani that are worth noting are that HIV spreads in Africa mainly through concurrent relationships, that strong leadership is needed to stop HIV/AIDS, and that cultural stigmas on the virus increase the spread of the virus.

I believe that strong leadership is the solution in reducing the spread of HIV; Leadership not only in a nation’s government, but also in individual households. Leclerc-Madlala’s article uses an example where a political leader in South Africa was acquitted of charges of rape in 2007. This example and other cultural scripts tell the younger generation that “Sexual violence is sometimes a way to demonstrate passion or caring” and that it is the woman’s responsibility (or fault) for how a man behaves sexually. In addition, similar to Pisani’s example of Noerine, I had a professor in Kenya who talked about how sex, condom use, and HIV/AIDS needed to be more publicly addressed, but when we asked him if he talked about these things with his own children, he said he felt too embarrassed to. It also makes me mad how religious groups caused the banning of sexual education in many schools in Kenya. They say abstinence is the best way, but they do not even talk about that to students. Isn’t it better to have people use condoms then for them to get HIV/AIDS or any other STI? If parents do not talk about these issues and schools do not also, then how can girls learn that having a “sugar daddy” is not safe, and where will boys learn that they should get circumcised (if their society doesn’t normally)? If African countries truly want to see HIV/AIDS disappear they must have stronger prevention initiatives like Uganda’s Zero Grazing, where “partner reduction and faithfulness” are encouraged. There must also be a large availability of condoms to the general public, and girls need to learn that they have the right to be respected and boys need to understand that. Unfortunately in many parts of Africa, “no” means “yes” to men. This information and the benefits of condom use must be engrained in people’s minds for change to happen on a society’s views on HIV/AIDS.

As for funding towards HIV/AIDS, money towards antiretroviral drugs is essential, but I also agree with Obama that more money should be spent on other diseases that will save more lives for less money. More people, especially children from the slums, die from diseases like cholera, diarrhea, and malaria than HIV/AIDS. Plus if more money and effort was spent on prevention of HIV/AIDS (which is far cheaper than treatment programs), then less people would have the virus and more money could go into improving the overall health systems in countries as Levine and Oomman suggest. As I discovered in Kenya, the HIV/AIDS treatment programs were excellent, but hospitals did not have enough doctors to deal with problems. My friend who was a medical intern told me how one person came in with his back cut and bleeding, but that there was no one qualified in that hospital to fix him or an ambulance to take him to another hospital. Therefore, they had to wait for an ambulance to come, but instead of bandaging him or giving him something to help with the pain, the other medical workers went on a lunch break. That person’s life was just as important as someone with HIV/AIDS, but this example shows what the country and donors would rather invest in. The best way to deal with this is to work on preventing HIV/AIDS, so that more funding can go into other health concerns.

Feed the Future

Feed the Future
US govt sponsored food security and malnutrition program
Implementation plans, etc. available by region and by country on the website.

United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women

UN Women Official Website

A New Era Begins at UN Women

by Anne-christine d'Adesky  |  February 4, 2011

Once sidelined, women are now gaining momentum within the UN system. UN Women opened it's doors in January—and with it the doors to women's leadership at the global level.

"...Kavita Ramdas says that UN Women must define a new role and agenda at the UN—taking gender demands into new spheres. Up to now, she feels, the creation of women's agencies has somewhat siloed them—and allowed other agencies off the hook for gender reform. UN Women should continue building upon the bricks put in place by UNIFEM and its sister agencies to support women's programs, but it needs to redefine the problems. “It's not, 'Oh, here is your money to fund a few nice women's projects,'” she says. UN Women, especially with powerhouse Bachelet in charge, “has the chance to engage in a different way.” She points to sexual violence as an example. “I think one of the things the women's movement is trying to show are the deep links of sexual violence to structures of militarism and violence institutionally, on a wide society level, and what is directed against women.” She wants UN Women to “sit in on Security Council decisions on war and peace. It's very important for agencies to take part in deliberations when you are negotiating peace settlements.” Whenever there are major critical political questions or crises like Sudan, nuclear stand-down in North or South Korea”—she ticks off examples—“this agency is at the table. That is a very different role for the agency.”

...

War, peace, migration, disasters, global warming—these may not be thought of as 'women's issues', but UN Women can bring analysis of how these issues overlap and run along gender lines to the negotiating table; how war may impact women differently, leading to mass rape in the Congo, for example. It can build on powerful policy tools like Security Council Resolution 1325, which was adopted to strengthen women's roles in the UN's peace and security efforts. It can tackle thorny social issues like reproductive rights and the gaps between religious laws and international laws. And it can help reframe a national, political reponse to gender crimes."

...

Ritu Sharma is eyeing more concrete goals that would spell immediate improvement in women's lives. On her wish-list: “Getting every woman and girl child a birth certificate. Without that, [they] do not exist, have no rights, and can't get many services like education.”

...

Stephen Lewis, ever the outspoken feminist, minces no words: “Men have one role above all others in the pursuit of gender equality and the empowerment of women,” he says, “and that is to relinquish our power so that women can assume the share that is rightfully theirs.” If they do, Ramdas feels, they will gain, too. “I hope it will be a new decade for gender equality and I hope it not be narrowly defined, but a world in which men will be free too. Ideally this should be an agency that is passionate and that shows by liberating women, you liberate men too.”

 

Read the whole article here.

Response to Initial Conditions - Linn Groft

Linn Groft

African Poverty & Western Aid: Response to Initial Conditions

7 February 2011

            In “Disease and Development in Historical Perspective”, Acemoglu et al discuss the effects of disease on economic growth, and dispute the argument that health is a first-order determinant of growth. They argue with various data sets that improvements in health have not led to increased rates of growth in many populations. They acknowledge health as a social and humanitarian concern, and that health differences affected whether or not the “liberal” and democratic institutional structures of Western colonists were installed, but not as an important factor for economic growth for today’s societies. These authors too readily dismiss the influence of health on the future of a society.

            Perhaps they are correct that a health population is not a first-order determinant of growth, but certainly it is a necessary prerequisite. To say that health initiatives should not be part of economic growth initiatives is naïve because while a healthy population is not inherently a productive population, an unhealthy population will not produce rapid growth. I know of no unhealthy countries that are wealthy, industrialized countries. Of course, which comes first is a question of importance, but if a country like Kenya has a significant portion of its working-age population dying off, any growth in GDP is likely concentrated in the hands of the few. And, as Sokoloff and Engerman note, the concentrations of power and money affect the institutions that are built and the degree to which those institutions build up the population as a whole or simply further benefit the elites.

            Furthermore, Acemoglu et al acknowledge that only recently have scientists begun to look at how health might be a determinant for wealth, but that it has been long acknowledged (and they offer no dispute to this) that wealth is a determining factor of health. Economically poorer populations are predisposed to have poorer health. Thus, within a given society, those who are less financially set are going to have poorer health and be individually less capable of contributing to GDP and bettering their own lives. Now, perhaps as an aggregate, this does not make a huge difference. And aggregate growth seems to be all that these authors are concerned with. But let us consider, again, equity within a society and the influence of such equity on the types of institutions and the type of growth that will occur within that society. Sachs et al demonstrate to us that if the poor are getting sick and getting poorer because they are less productive, and their family members become less productive because they have to care for them, and the rich are staying healthy and thus capable of continuing to be productive members of society, then we see an increasing gap between the rich and the poor, the educated and the uneducated, the healthy and the sick. The poor can never catch up; little social and economic equity within the country can be achieved. Can we not then conclude that the institutions that continually develop will continue to—and perhaps even increasingly—benefit those elites and not the unhealthy masses? And that unlike the rather democratic, popular development in the US and Canada, these countries will evolve more like the exploited, highly disparate economies in the Caribbean at the very same time.

            Another point is that money and energy—whether domestic budget or foreign aid—that has to be spent on health initiatives is money and energy that is not being invested elsewhere. Investments in schools and public services and industry must take a back seat to immediate health and sanitation needs, otherwise those services and industries are obsolete.

            Finally, my last point is that maybe these authors are actually just flat-out wrong. While, yes, OECD countries made huge strides post-WWII and Latin-American and South- and Southeast-Asian countries continued to lag behind. But what of other factors? First of all, while health advances were made, those health advances were never as available in Latin American and S/SE-Asian countries as in North American and European nations. OECD countries also had the benefits of industrialization and war-time efforts that spurred growth and innovation, plus favorable geography and a long history of strong infrastructure that do account for many of the differences in growth rates.

            I find Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson’s conclusions naïve and faulty. While their research is perhaps informative in some respects, they discredit or simply fail to address many important determinants of economic growth.

Week 3 Response-Christine

This week’s readings lead to the basic understanding that colonization has left Africa and other civilizations (Inca, Aztecs, Native Americans) with more problems than before they were colonized while the colonialists left better off economically. In addition the readings seem to make Africans look like helpless victims to their environment (in which they seemed perfectly fine in before colonialism) instead of what they can do to fix the issues themselves. Herbst points out that the size and shape of African countries were given to them, and although history has said that larger is better in terms of the size of a nation, smaller African countries have a better chance of controlling their population. He also mentions that small states may not be as “economically viable”, but I disagree. What about Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, or even South Korea? One of the solutions that I believe will help the economies of African countries (especially those not on the coast) is a regional trade cooperative. East African countries such as Rwanda, Kenya, and Uganda should trade with each other, strengthening the region and its own countries and the same with the Southern, Northern, and Eastern regions. It would be like a mini-European Union and citizens of the cooperative countries should be able to travel easily between countries. Currently there is more trade between individual African countries and foreign countries, but if the majority of trade were to occur within Africa, the money would remain in Africa too.

Diamond, Sachs, Mellinger, Gallup, Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson all seem to say something about how diseases have played a major role in impeding development in Africa. Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson says that “unhealthy people are less productive”, but also thinks that health conditions are not the main issue in economic development. I agree. Obviously fighting diseases is important, but the underlying issue is still poverty. My professor in Kenya told a story about how an NGO gave malaria nets to people at a coastal village, but when the organization came back a few months later, they found that the people had sold the nets to fishermen for money because they needed food. Sachs recommends increasing donor funds to fight diseases and poverty, however they need something more long-term and sustainable to get themselves out of poverty, so they will not become dependent on aid. Regional cooperatives can be a solution along with governmental support of informal markets where majorities of the African population get their income. Geography and history may play a part in Africa’s slow growth, but they can be overcome.

Brait, Week 3 Response Paper

When it comes to the problem of poverty in Africa, there is not one reason that the countries have been impoverished for so long with no signs of it lifting. The readings this week discussed a variety of reasons that Africa is in such a desperate state of poverty, none of which can be singled out as the sole reason for poverty. In ‘the Geography of Poverty and Wealth’, it is said that there is strong evidence that geography plays an important role in shaping the distribution of world income and economic growth. It would seem that this is one of those ‘duh’ things that should have been taken into account since the beginning of aid. Geography effects the type of crops, if any, can be grown in an area, the type of businesses that would be successful there, and the access to the global community. Now that it’s clear that geography does in fact matter, it is important to ask how geography can be used so as to positively affect development. Of course, geography of an area can’t be changed. However, appropriating aid that is conducive to relief in a specific geography would allow for citizens of that area to work with the geography in such a way that benefits them and improves their livelihood.

In chapter 5 of his book, Herbst discusses the implications of the size and shape of the African country on the politics within that country. Obviously, the population distribution within the different African countries causes problems for each country based on the structure of the distribution. Is there a way to remedy this population distribution? Herbst says, “In the pre-colonial era. Population distribution yielded boundaries. In the modern era, boundaries define a people.” Are the boundaries in Africa defining the people in a way that is detrimental to their livelihood? Would it be most beneficial to change these boundaries and appropriate boundaries in a different way? At the conference in New York on African poverty and Western Aid, one of the speakers suggested that the countries of Africa would be better off if the borders were redistributed, creating just 5 African countries. I don’t know that consolidating to 5 countries would necessarily be beneficial, but changing borders has the potential to alleviate some of the problems experienced in some countries. Redistribution with regard to population density, ethnicity, and other crucial factors has the potential to create more unified, functional countries. However, that also leaves room for problems as well.

In “Guns, Germs, and Steel” chapter 4, I found the claim ‘food production was indirectly a prerequisite for the development of guns, germs, and steel’ very interesting. This statement makes sense, as these more intricate forms of technology could only come as a result of a lifestyle that includes food production. This statement made me think about food production in terms of human nature. Why did people originally start producing food? Is progress part of human nature, or is learned through culture? Although very few remain, there are still groups of people that live as hunter-gatherers. Why have these people not switched to food production?

James - Response Paper - Week 3

Carly James
African Poverty & Western Aid
F. James
February 7, 2011

Response Paper

Week 3

I found the Sokoloff article to be especially interesting, because I had never really heard the colonial period in the New World discussed in these terms, meaning, in terms of human capital and state formation as they relate to demography and power dynamics. I wish Sokoloff could have extrapolated his three-pronged theory of New World factor endowments to the rest of the colonial empire (British, Spanish, French). Also, Sokoloff continued to note that the Southern region of the United States lagged in making several of these transitions (e.g. full suffrage, compulsory/free education) due to its population heterogeneity and inequality. This made me think about how we often talk about “the Global South,” as an entity distinct from “the Global North” which has different needs, a different climate, sometimes a different demographic make-up, etc. It has been said that the North of any country is always starkly different than the South. Anyway, this gives more credit to the idea that appears in many of the readings this week which maintains that geography plays an important role in determining the productive activities of an area, and that it is important to bear this in mind when thinking about how to work within these environments and work with the forces of nature rather than against it in order to maximize social and economic profit.

Diamond’s emphasis on geography and natural resources reappear in the Sachs, Mellinger, and Gallup article. I took a course on race last semester, which really enlightened me on the origins of race as a social construct and its invalidity as a biological concept. In that class, we referenced Jared Diamond’s book as a key work which counters the notion of racial superiority. Diamond exposes the fact that some parts of the world are simply more suitable to certain plants and animals, some are less inviting to infectious diseases, and some are uniquely equipped to support strong trade networks. Who knew manure was so instrumental in the evolution of crop production? As societies become more complex and perhaps start forming state institutions, trading becomes ever important. Foraging and hunting are not extremely efficient, but they certainly have implications for population control and more egalitarian social structures. State societies, however, are often built on the notion of social and/or economic inequality so as to further competition (domestically and between nations). In the Sachs, Mellinger, and Gallup article, they explain how economies differ in their ease of transporting goods. The map of navigable rivers worldwide provided at the end of the article was the one that I found most intriguing--and most surprising. It helped me understand just how important ready access to market really is, and has been for centuries. When I was working in Washington, DC two summers ago, I attended this event entitled “Aid, Trade, and Security: America’s Role in Global Development.” One of the panel discussions was focused on market access, and there was a representative from the office of the US Trade Representative who was stressing not only the importance infrastructure, but specifically the benefits of free trade so that all countries have corridors, avenues, and pathways to financial sharing. This, she remarked, should be the crux of economic development today. Also, at the conference on African development that Apwonjo attended in New York City last fall, there was a presenter who showed a revamped map of Sub-Saharan Africa in which countries would be divided up into regional trading blocs. Think of the way that NAFTA works, and apply this to the developing world. She stressed the need for African reliance on Africa, and internal trade so that countries could embrace their unique productive capacities and move away from single product-dependent economies that rely on non-African foreign buyers. Anyway, in all of this, I find geography and natural resources to be an interesting component because these are non-changeable factors in development. Thus, it is not a question of changing existing institutions or behaviors or methods of doing things--it is about working with these forces in order to maximize potential in a way that is relevant to the society in question.

Initial Conditions Respone-Baccus

All of this week’s readings emphasized how initial conditions can drastically shape the pattern a country’s development takes. According to Sachs, Mellinger and Gallup, “regions in the ‘temperate-near’ category constitute a mere 8.4% of the world’s inhabited land area, but they hold 22.8% of the world’s population and produce 52.9% of the world’s GNP.” These statistics almost seem unfair. How can so much economic growth for such a tiny segment of the world population be based on sheer geographic luck? Moreover, how can Westerners in development expect to help Africa grow when so much of their own growth is rooted in lucky geography? By highlighting the fact that factor endowments like geography do play a role in the development process, this week’s articles not only reveal how developed countries were primed for economic growth but how developing countries like those in Africa were disadvantaged geographically from the very start. This difference must be taken into account in development strategies for African countries. The situation in African countries is not the same as the situation in developing countries and it never was. If it had been, the field of “African development” would not even exist.

Herbst reveals more differences between African countries and developed countries by discussing the unique population distributions in many African states. The Western philosophy of bigger is better often fails in Africa precisely because of these population distributions. Many larger African states have population pockets dispersed throughout the countryside, which are hard to unite, and poor infrastructure. Both characteristics make it hard for governments to enforce and maintain power. Herbst also notes that these population pockets are more often than not ethnic clusters, which might explain why many Africans continue to identify by their ethnic tribe before a nationality- a factor which in itself makes it more difficult for a state to exert control. As I was reading Herbst’s article focused on the problems posed by population distributions and the general lack of infrastructure in Africa, I could not help thinking about China and their zealous road-building throughout the African continent in recent years. Herbst describes infrastructure as a “double-edge sword” for larger African countries because it allows capital to flow out while also allowing disgruntled pocket populations to more easily reach the capital. What will the increased number of roads built by China in these larger African nations mean? Will more roads actually help stabilize these states or simply foster more conflict within their borders ultimately further destabilizing them?

Acemoglu, Robinson, and Johnson not only point to Africa’s disease-prone geography as a disadvantage to Africa itself but also as a factor that influenced how colonizers treated colonies in Africa differently. They note that Europeans were more likely to set up extractive institutions and concentrate power in the hands of local elites when colonial environments contained fatal disease threats to Europeans themselves. I think this is an extremely important point. These colonial decisions to not invest in much institutional development undoubtedly shaped the course of African development too. However, this perspective gives the colonizers a more active role in this process. European colonizers might have been influenced by Africa’s geography and the prominence of disease on the continent but their actions and the institutions they set up -not the geography- directly limited Africa’s economic growth too. Thus, Westerners working in development must recognize the differences in geography that have hindered Africa’s development but also the role that Westerners themselves played in limiting Africa’s economic growth during the colonial period.

"Measuring Poverty & Delivering Aid" (Response to Week Two)

Measuring Poverty and Delivering Aid

The idea of measuring poverty was particularly pertinent to a lecture I heard by Allison Jaggar on the “Feminization of Global Poverty”. As I was reading in Moss about the widely used UN’s HDI, I began to ask myself “Why do we need to raise people out of poverty?” I asked myself this not because I think we don’t, but because I think the answer to this question is essential to how we measure poverty and how we approach development. If the idea is that we have a collective human responsibility to ensure a “decent” and “dignified” life for all, we must consider that the definitions of “dignity” and “decency” are culturally sensitive and that theWestern world is measuring non-Western people by Western values. These are issues that need to be visited in our definitions of poverty and our definitions of non-poverty. Jaggar argued in her lecture that definitions of poverty have been entirely from a Western point of view, and that this creates a bias against the poor themselves, and even more disproportionately against women. I agree with Jaggar, and I agree that we should include the poor themselves in the definitions of poverty that we measure them against. Jaggar helped me to take a better understanding away from the Moss and Easterly readings. I think that reexamining our definition of poverty will help us in reexamining how we approach and understand development.

Moss discusses the need for pro-poor growth, as all growth is not good growth. This reminds me of my visit to Ghana, when I visited a town where the people were literally sitting on a gold mine. The town was very poor, though, because the gold mine was only benefiting the already-wealthy, mostly foreign investors who had been given the rights to the mine after wanted the money from selling those rights to jumpstart their newly independent nation. To me this reflects in some ways what Helpman discusses with regard to capital accumulation and technological innovation. There is a great need for capital resources in order for nationals to be able to benefit from their own resources. Technological innovations are important, but not on their own—they must be available to Ghanaians themselves (and this brings us back to the idea of demands for pro-poor growth). This presents a good argument for aid to help national investment in physical and human capital.

Furthermore, this situation also brings us back to the question of how we define poverty, because I would argue that this mine actually lowered the welfare of the people in this town delving them deeper into poverty, if you choose to include health and environmental welfare as well as the ability to make decisions for themselves in the definition, as the mining of the gold contaminates their water and the people have no say in this happening.

Technological innovation is working, according to Moss: “the world is getting more efficient at turning new income gains into welfare gains” (171). Helpman argues for increasing TFP which in turn will encourage capital accumulation. But of course health problems can undermine this attempt, as education may be unpopular or difficult to acquire. There is a spiraling cycle of circumstances that creates a sort of poverty trap that is difficult to escape.

Easterly and Moss both discredit the idea of a poverty trap, and whether or not this is true is a debate I’m not sure I’m equipped to handle. But traps aren’t necessarily natural, like quick-sand. They can be man-made booby-traps set up by the scarring remnants of colonial powers, neo-colonial influence, and the greedy self-interests of investors—all of which continue to plague the African continent. Moss’s explanation of poverty as a result of “Africa’s unlucky history, bad geography, and inhospitable climate” grants amnesty to the selfish, murderous history of Western influence on the continent.