Christopher Preble and Marian L. Tupy have discovered the perfect storm of market interference: That keep Africans poor, soak American taxpayers, and give fuel to demagogues railing against the Great Satan. They're ag subsidies and they're coming to a farmer's market near you.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Adam | June 17, 2005, 9:31pm | #
They're ag subsidies and they're coming to a farmer's market near you.This just in..
joe | June 17, 2005, 9:41pm | #
I know it's just a quip, but...Most farmers markets sell fruit and veggies, which don't generally get ag subsidies. It's mostly the big commodities like grain, milk, and sugar that get subsidies.
The main subsidized crop you'd see at a farmer's market is corn. In terms of total outlays, that's by far the biggest subsidy program. Apples are subsidized now, too.
I have no support to give to agricultural subsidies, but one of the main causes of poverty in Africa [and most 3rd world countries] is human reproduction. It is insanity to bring more babies into the world when one cannot even feed oneself adequately. Africa is literally ****ing itself to death.
Rick Barton | June 18, 2005, 3:00am | #
j w,What causes some nations to suffer wide spread poverty is a lack of economic liberty. Capitalism, on the other hand, leads to wealth for the masses. High birth rates are a symptom of poverty rather than a cause. People try to ensure their old age security by having lots of children to take care of them.
Note that the birth rates are lower in the more capitalistic Costa Rica, relative to most of the rest of Central America. Note as well the reduction in birth rate in the relatively more affluent areas of India that have adopted greater economic liberty and spawned, for instance, a software sector.
Swede | June 18, 2005, 3:49am | #
"Why is the birth rate low in Russia?"The following quote from a State Department paper might shed some light on that question. In addition (an I'm just guessing here), the overall quality of life is so poor there (average male life expectancy is slightly less than 60 and only getting worse)that many people may see no point in bringing children into the picture. A country so plagued by destitution, deprivation, violence, corruption, and just a general lack of hope is an unattractive place to start a family (at least in the urban areas- the rural areas, where more children lead to more reliable labor on the farm, might have higher birth rates. Again, I am just guessing).
"Russia is following the general European downward trend with regard to fertility. Overall, Russia's total fertility rate stands at 1.17, and some believe that it can reach as low as 1.0--well below replacement level of 2.14. All agreed that it will not rise higher than 1.5 over the next 20 years. Russia's abortion rate remains extremely high, and noted demographer Murray Feshbach claims that thirty percent of Russian women of childbearing age are infertile"
http://www.fas.org/irp/nic/russia.html
TJIT | June 18, 2005, 4:22am | #
jw,You could not be more wrong, Zimbabwe shows that. They went from one of the biggest food producers to facing famine after Mugabe took land from white framers to give to his political cronies.
Despots and bad government policy are the root cause of most of the poverty in Africa.
jw | June 18, 2005, 5:09am | #
"What causes some nations to suffer wide spread poverty is lack of ecconomic liberty. Capitalism, on the other hand, leads to wealth for the masses."I don't disagree with that.
"High birth rates are a symptom of poverty rather than a cause. People try to ensure their old age security by having lots of children to take care of them."
High birth rates can also be a symptom of prosperity-the U.S once had a high birth rate. (Perhaps it still does.) But all the ecconomic freedom conceivable is not much help, if one must consume one's capital rather than invest it. A farmer would not be very successful if he were to eat all his seed corn (as an example.)
Yes, people do have children for the purpose of providing old age security (just as the old live off the young in this country through Social Security.) And they also have them to provide cheap farm labor (as they once did in this country.) They have a culture that says it is okay to make some the means to the ends of others. Some of them (many of them?) also have a culture that says a man is not a man unless he fathers children and a religion that makes it one's duty to "be fruitful and multiply."
What I am saying is that freedom isn't much help if one insists on making faulty choices. Liberty isn't much help to a drowning man if he won't let go of the stone.
Jonathan Dingel | June 18, 2005, 5:18am | #
The paradoxical argument that higher food prices are good for poor people requires a more nuanced explanation when most LDCs are net importers of food.TJIT: What do you suppose is the "root cause" of the despotism and bad government policy in Africa- or anywhere else in the world? Could it be...CULTURAL values? and decisions based on said values
kwais | June 18, 2005, 5:52am | #
Swede,Is the infertility a result of abortions? Or something in the water? Or are they talking about infertility as a choice?
kwais | June 18, 2005, 5:56am | #
My guess is the problems in Africa are a result of;1 Bad governments
2 Us giving them money and in effect subsidzing poverty and destitution.
3 Our farm subsidies
4 Them having too many babies, though that is also a result somewhat of the above mentioned.
Ron Hardin | June 18, 2005, 8:23am | #
My favorite perverse side effect is handing out free food to the starving, driving any local production out of business.It's not as if there are too many people; after all division of labor works better with more people. It's that structurally there's no way anybody can compete with free food, so labor doesn't divide, and they can't do anything for each other.
Adam | June 18, 2005, 8:25am | #
“Africa is currently experiencing its best economic performance in many years [an eight-year high of 5.1 per cent growth in 2004]. The continent’s economies are benefiting from global expansion, notably through higher demand for commodities at higher prices; improved domestic macroeconomic management; and the easing of conflicts in many countries. While serious problems persist – including the humanitarian catastrophe in western Sudan, the political hardening in Zimbabwe, and conflicts in Côte d’Ivoire – prospects for much of Africa appear to remain more favourable than they have been for many years…Solid growth is expected to continue in 2005 and 2006 – although at a slightly lower rate of 4.7 per cent in 2005”
- OECD´s African Economic Outlook 2004/2005
hat tip Marco
Adam | June 18, 2005, 8:26am | #
and Rick Barton mentioned Costa Rica...check out the Movimiento Libertario to see what's goin on theredrf | June 18, 2005, 10:54am | #
"High birth rates can also be a symptom of prosperity"i've never heard that one before. Children, it is often quipped, are an inferior good. That is, when a people gets wealthier, the birth rate drops. Although it's not that simple...
Your classification of "fucking themselves to death" might be a nice glib comment regarding AIDS in africa, but it is beyond any development econ. that is in the mainstream now.
Still, your claim of high birth rate as a sign of prosperity is also new - what are your studies on that? That goes against most everything i've heard about development economics.
Paul Ehrlich agreed with your point about overpopulation. Hell, Thomas Malthus was one of the first to voice that thought. Pre industrialization, he may have been right, even.
Looking at the concept of the "poverty trap", which is an unstable equilibrium in the steady state of the economy might be more interesting.
As for the corn: that's another glib statement that ignores the problems in developing nations.
As for Russia, that's a false connection with what Rick said. There are other reasons why the birth rate could be low. Russia demonstrates a series of troubles and problems that may contribute to its particular problems.
The point is that Africa would benefit greatly from free trade in agriculture and textiles in the western world.
freetrade.org/pubs/speeches/wn-4-6-98.html
(section D on politics addresses EXACTLY what Rick noted)
Perhaps JW has some mainstream economic analysis to support that claim? If not, we should throw it in the heap with the (finance people ready?) "bird in the hand" dividend theory :)
Rick Barton | June 18, 2005, 12:52pm | #
kwais,The phenomena of high birth rates as an attempt to try to ensure old age security tends to occur in nations with extreme poverty, worse than Russia.
Rick Barton | June 18, 2005, 12:55pm | #
Adam,Thanks for the encouraging and interesting link from Costa Rica.
Eddy | June 18, 2005, 1:01pm | #
Jonathan,It isn't a paradox at all "that higher food prices are good for poor people" since the "poor people" are the local farmers who cannot compete in either the local or global marketplace because the price of imported crops is held so artificially low by the importing country's subsidies. If those subsidies are removed the price of the crop is determined by the market and that 'increase' allows the "poor people" to earn enough money to improve their situation.
drf, I think the prosperity signal is actually a lower infant mortality rate rather than a higher birth rate. I think there is confusion between several of these metrics. Also while some like to talk about the large birth rates of African countries they neglect other factors. For instance while Swaziland has a birth rate almost twice that of the US the population growth rate is substantially less than half the US rate.
drf | June 18, 2005, 2:37pm | #
eddy:huh?
you're restating my argument, too. i think you mean "JW". grin. my comments were trying to figure out what he was trying to say. it's the same argument as the "choice = bad life" that someone was making the other day. :)
birth rates and infant mortality tend to be lower in wealthier countries. so, we've been essentially in agreement here. I was responding to what i thought was a poor shot in the dark from someone above who came up with that zinger about prosperity. but it wasn't my thought
also, higher infant mortality rates need to be countered by higher birth rates. look at 17th century europe for demonstration of this. denmarks statistics actually has some excellent work on that area.
Larry Edelstein | June 18, 2005, 4:34pm | #
To me, this story is what passes for good news. There's great hope for world prosperity if developed nations stop fucking up themselves and everyone else with market interference.(Of course, we already know that, but it's good to be reminded.)
Ken Shultz | June 18, 2005, 4:44pm | #
Among the biggest factors contributing to high birth rates is a low level of opportunity for women. When women have few opportunities, they tend to have more children. This was true in the United States before women started joining the workforce in a big way, and it was true in Europe too....In parts of Africa, where even the men have few opportunities, it's much worse. Indeed, when the highest valued foregone alternative to having another child is nothing, why not have another child?
P.S. I no longer think of opportunity as a simple function of capitalism; it's a function of the rule of law too. Capitalism needs clearly defined property rights, etc. in order to function properly.
Larry A | June 18, 2005, 5:25pm | #
Capitalism needs clearly defined property rights, etc. in order to function properly.Capitalism doesn't "need" property rights. They are an essential part of that economic system.
The central feature of capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. If you don't have property rights you can't own things and whatever you call the economic system that results, it ain't capitalism.
Ken Shultz | June 18, 2005, 6:06pm | #
"If you don't have property rights you can't own things and whatever you call the economic system that results, it ain't capitalism."I don't want to get into a semantic argument, and I think we agree, mostly.
Many people think of the late 19th and early 20th century as a high point of American capitalism. ...and, I think, it's certainly true that more of the economic inputs were privately owned then than is the case now--think land here among other things. However, government may or may not have protected the property rights of the people who owned the land.
...We stole thousands of acres of land from Native Americans and gave it away. Law enforcement often ignored the property rights of African Americans and newly arrived immigrants. We took land away from farmers and mining companies and gave it to railroads, etc. That is to say, there was, effectively, no rule of law for large numbers of people. ...in spite of the fact that land was, for the most part, held in private hands.
That's a big problem in places like Zimbabwe--it's not just that the private sector needs to hold the economic inputs, it's that people's rights to their property need to be clearly defined and protected by the rule of law.
...Are you familiar with what happened in Chiapas?
Ruthless | June 18, 2005, 7:41pm | #
I apologize in advance, but I was just looking for the best spot to stick this--where the sun, hopefully, DOES shine.In Friday's Wall St Journal, Mary Anastasia O'Grady's column on the Americas is headlined, "Blame U.S. Drug Policy for the Bolivian Uprising."
At least someone at that prestigious newspaper gets it that the War on Drugs should be repealed as was Prohibition.
Ruthless | June 18, 2005, 7:47pm | #
Ken Shultz,Why didn't Shrub do a trial run by overthrowing Robert Mugabe before jumping straight into the hornets' nest of the Middle East?
Ken Shultz | June 18, 2005, 7:49pm | #
...Because, unlike Saddam Hussein, Mugabe didn't have any WMD. ; )TJIT | June 18, 2005, 8:47pm | #
Ken and Ruthless,Genocide is incipient in Zimbabwe. A better question would be why doesn't south africa, or the UN, do something about it? Why aren't Amnesty International, or human rights watch doing all they can to get people educated about this and try and build opinion to stop the genocide? Better yet if you want the US to do something why not support getting weapons (rifles, shotguns, maybe some AK47s)to the people Mugabe is oppressing?
Your insipid snarking overlooks the fact that human beings, (not abstract, amusing anecdotes) are going to be killed in huge numbers by Mugabe and the worldwide reaction is going to be a shrug or in your case a snark.
Ruthless | June 18, 2005, 8:58pm | #
TJIT,Sorry to inform you, but folks of the darker persuasion can do no wrong.
Factor that into your panic.
TJIT | June 18, 2005, 9:03pm | #
Farm subsidies are another reason I absolutely detest the mainstream media. Ag subsidies have shafted the honest and efficient farmers, disproportionately supported the largest farmers, made it almost impossible for young farmers to get in the business, screwed the consumers, reamed the candy makers and their employees, done an unbelievable amount of damage to the environment, and destroyed much of the third worlds ability to start up the economic ladder.Yet every time the idea of cutting agriculture subsidies is broached the first thing you get from multiple MSM outlets is how bad this would be for "family farmers".
Ruthless | June 18, 2005, 9:34pm | #
TJIT,Have you heard of Conway Twitty?
Well, that's not who I'm trying to summons here.
I should have already ceased posting, but someone here will finish my thought.
Do you love Dolly Parton as I do?
Her "rack" pales in comparison to Jennifer's.
TJIT | June 18, 2005, 10:30pm | #
Ruthless,Your last post is almost a poem, polish it a little bit and you will have a respectable haiku:-)
No panic on my part just frustration. From Rwanda, to Yugoslavia, to Sudan the "international community" has not done anything to stop genocide.
At this point I believe the best way to stop genocide is to simply dump a few trainloads of weapons on the at risk population. Much more effective and cheaper then the non productive hand wringing that currently passes for diplomacy.
Now back to the regularly scheduled comments on agricultural subsidies............
Ruthless | June 18, 2005, 10:41pm | #
TJIT,Join me in anarchy.
The "international community" is Santa Claus.
Ken Shultz | June 18, 2005, 11:04pm | #
I've tried, but I still haven't made that final leap to Anarchism. ...yet.Speaking of which, I saw that the Wachowski Brothers are filming V for Vendetta even as I type. I would anticipate wide Anarchist approval of a mass market film that ends with the people of Britain rising up and blowing up the Parliament, no?
...I understand the film's supposed to open on the 400th anniversary of Guy Fawkes Day.
thoreau | June 19, 2005, 1:12am | #
I know this thread started off with farm subsidies, but genocide came up and I have an interesting thought (well, I think it's interesting) on stopping genocide. I don't know whether this thought weighs in favor of more intervention or weighs in favor of less intervention. Or maybe it supports neither side and both sides. Anyway, here it is:The big fear of any country leaping into a conflict is that they'll get bogged down and be stuck in the middle of a problem situation forever. The big fear of any country thinking about staying out of a genocide is that the problem won't go away on its own, and will instead keep growing until it sparks WWII comparisons.
Some have argued that an intervention need not turn into an endless occupation if the occupied country is successfully liberalized. They frequently point to Germany, Japan, and Italy as examples of success.
The liberalization of Japan was certainly a success, as was the liberalization of Italy. But how successful was the liberalization of Germany? Half the country became Communist and the divided persisted for more than 40 years. There was an end to the shooting, but we remained there in a stand-off with the Commies for more than 40 years.
Now, I don't want to come across as arguing that we shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII. (For the record, I think we did the right thing, and for those who disagree, well, let's just agree to disagree for now.) My only point is that our intervention in Germany can hardly be considered an example of a case where the conflict ended, liberalization ensued, and we got to bring our boys home. Sure, half the country liberalized quite nicely, but the other half? Well, we all know how that turned out.
Before any hawks jump all over me, please read the rest of this post.
One thing to keep in mind is that although Germany remained a troubled place after WWII (what with the whole Communism thing and whatnot), the problem that kept us there was admittedly not the problem that brought us there. It's not like we separated two warring factions and then had to stay to keep them from resuming. It was a rather different situation from some that we're likely to face in the near future, which may limit the applicability of the situation regardless of which conclusions you draw from it. (That cuts both ways, hawk or dove.)
Another thing to note is that we certainly did achieve the goals that brought us to Germany, and it's arguable that our presence there after the war furthered our interests (bases against Communism) rather than hurting our interests (being bogged down in a war of attrition). So hawks can still point to Germany and WWII as a success story.
Anyway, lessons to take away from these musings:
1) Even in the best case study, where we stopped a horrific genocide, we still couldn't leave after the war ended, and a good chunk of the country remained hopelessly illiberal. So be careful about what you use as your poster child.
2) But, that situation also bore a number of very unique features that make it harder to extrapolate to other situations. So don't take my pessimistic analysis of Germany as a valid counter-argument if somebody wants to intervene the next time there's another Rwanda.
Anyway, just food for thought (for both sides) on a frequently-discussed example.
Eddy | June 19, 2005, 9:44am | #
"That cuts both ways, hawk or dove."Let's face facts, hawks are too gamey and dove is just a fancy name for pigeon. I think a more apt nameset would be turkey or chicken. This way those who are on neither side can be ducks. hmmm...duck, I think I know what I'm having for dinner.
jw | June 19, 2005, 10:33am | #
"High birth rate as a symptom of prosperity?" Well perhaps I should have used the phrase "net population growth" instead; it would more accurately have conveyed my thinking. I was attempting to respond to Rick Barton and it was he who used the term "birth rate." (I believe I originally said "human reproduction.") I don't see how anyone can question whether prosperous countries are having a net population increase. The United States certainly is. As a matter of fact, the entire world is. Now is that a "symptom" of prosperity? ...or of poverty? I suspect that the answer would be: both. My original contention was that population growth is a cause of poverty - not necessarily in the sense that it brought the poverty - but that it is a factor in prolonging it and even exacerbating it. Yes, increased liberty and ecconomic freedom can help solve the problem of poverty. I agree, but I do not think it to be the only factor in the equation. What I said about farmers eating their seed corn was not meant as a glib remark, nor did I mean it litteraly. I was using it as an analogy . What I was trying to say is this: if one has to consume all of one's personal resources just to survive, one is not going to better one's situation by creating more mouths to feed. That just lessens the amount of resources one has available to improve one's lot. Somehow I don't think it takes a detailed ecconomic study(probably paid for with a taxpayer-funded grant) to figure that out. At the risk of sounding glib again I must say that if you want a hole to stop getting deeper, you might refrain from digging.I did not bring up the subject of the AIDS epidemic and that is not what I was referring to when I said that Africa is f***ing itself to death. I simply meant that increasing or even maintaining reproduction is hurting them, but now that I think of it...yeah, the AIDS thing, too.
Ehrlich? Malthus? Didn't I read a REASON article back in the seventies that said their theories had been discredited?
While I'm here could someone, please, tell me the meaning of the term "snark"? It looks like it might be a contraction of the phrase "snotty remark." Thanks, and goodnight, for now.
js | June 19, 2005, 1:56pm | #
"Why aren't Amnesty International, or human rights watch doing all they can to get people educated about this and try and build opinion to stop the genocide?"Well human rights watch has often pushed for "humanitarian intervention" (iraq didn't pass their muster) and Amnesty International does talk about the situation in Zimbabwe:
http://www.amnesty.ca/zimbabwe/
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/zwe-summary-eng
Sorry, but I often suspect smears snuck into to attack such organizations are based more on u.s. politics and and the fact that they dared criticized Bush administration policies than anything else.
This of course says nothing about what ultimately should be done about Zimbabwe. I'm actually much more skeptical of so called "humanitarian interventions" than HRW or Amnesty.
Mona | June 19, 2005, 5:40pm | #
kwais asks:Why is the birth rate low in Russia?I don't have any links handy, but have repeatedly read that the infant mortality rate in Russia is reasonably low. Impoverished nations, such as many in Africa, have very high infant mortality rates. If a woman must bear 8 children so that 2-3 might survive to adulthood, that is what many will do.
Women in the U.S. can be sure that -- especially if they avail themselves of pre-natal and medical care for their kids -- almost all they give birth to will outlive them. What is true here in the U.S. (and pretty true in Russia) is not true in Africa.
Ruthless | June 19, 2005, 9:02pm | #
thoreau,What causes genocide is the same thing that causes government corruption. Wait. Were those last two words redundant?
Leaders of governments are not at all interested in using tax money to promote good leaders or eliminate bad leaders such as Mugabe.
Nixon, Kissinger, and the rest of them think good and evil are too simplistic. They are playing chess or being Machiavellian, using nations as their pieces.
George W. Bush may be the exception in that he's not bright, and getting revenge on Saddam for his trying to assassinate his daddy may have caused Iraq to be his Tar Baby.
Jesus is not the answer. Anarchy is... peaceful anarchy.
Eddy | June 19, 2005, 11:23pm | #
JW, net population growth also includes migrants and if you look at the EU taken as a whole the entire population growth is due to migration. One of the more impressive economies in the EU is the Czech Republic yet their net population is declining.I don't understand what the population growth of the world has to do with anything. It says the gains outnumber the losses but says nothing about prosperity. If you are saying that a large obstacle to these countries catching up is that the population growth seems to consume every step forward, I can almost see your point but I think that is more a function of misguided aid trying to drag them along because it makes some people 'feel good' about themselves.
One of the things that it seems gets danced around but seldom mentioned when talking about population, birth, fertility, etc rates and how they relate to prosperity and poverty is the average age. If you look at populations with high birth rates you will notice they tend to be very young on average as opposed to the more mature populations with low birth and death rates. It is also the mature populations which tend to be more financially prosperous as well. It should also be noted that longer lived people tend to start families later in life when they have a more stable foundation which is something that can't be done with a short lifespan. Likewise, if you expect to survive 70+ years you tend to make decisions that are longer term and you will tend to become more skilled and more productive. On the other hand, one hoping to make it to 33 doesn't have much impetus for future planning and will likely not gain the advanced skills of their more mature counterparts.
If ever there was a symptom of prosperity, it appears to be old age.
Mona, the infant mortality rate in Russia is fairly high at just over 15 per 1000 live births, a bit more than double the US. One fact that does stand out is the median age for females is about 41 years so one might conclude the numbers of child bearing women is not all that high. To compare fertility to that of the US where the median is 37.6 is not fair as turkey basters more plentiful in the US.
Ruthless, I'm starting to feel myself drifting slowly toward the light, then the damn alarm goes off in the morning.
Thoreau, I think it was Churchill who said, "countries don't have friends, they have interests." The result is that genocide, frankly, isn't interesting and the fact that one was stopped during WW2 was just a happy coincidence that wasn't discovered until quite late. For those who want to compare Iraq to WW2, the closest comparison I can come up with is the blitzkrieg type action going in and taking over, but then look what happened last time a blitzing attack was followed by occupancy.
joe | June 20, 2005, 9:55am | #
Ron Hardin,If people are starving, providing them with free food doesn't interfere with the food market. If there is widespread starvation, there either isnt' a food market that can provide for them, or the people starving don't have enough money to enter whatever food market exists.
If we went around dumping free food in places that were just plain poor, but had adequate food supplies, that would be a problem. But in cases of actual famine, by definition, there's no functional market system for food aid to disrupt.
thoreau | June 20, 2005, 12:40pm | #
Eddy-You make a good point. I mostly posted my point because some people like to point to Germany as an example of liberalizing at gunpoint after a dictator gassed a large number of his own citizens. Of course, there are limitations on the applicability of such comparisons, as you and I have both pointed out.
Stevo Darkly | June 20, 2005, 2:12pm | #
Rambling commentary, touching on a number of things that others have said.1) High birth rates tend to be marks of poverty. High infant survival rates tend to be marks of prosperity. In poorer, traditional countries, you have lots of kids because they are the ones who are going to take care of you when you're too old to work to support yourself. Because most of the newborns will not live to adulthood, you tend to have even more kids to ensure at least some survive to take care of you. Meanwhile, the kids are also an economic asset -- they help you work the farm or whatever.
2) As populations getting wealthier, birth rates tend to drop. Kids are no longer an economic asset. Fewer people have farms where the kids can help out. Kids become more of a cost; you have to send most of them to higher education in order to make them productive. (If you fail to make them productive, you end up taking care of them when you're older.) And you no longer rely so much on kids to support you in old age because wealthier countries have pension and state welfare systems.
3) I'm not 100% sure of this and don't have time to look it up, but I think I've read that the birthrate in the U.S. is actually below replacement level. In other words, the U.S. population would be falling if not for immigration.
4) Poorer people in the U.S. tend to have more kids than the wealthy.
5) I don't know why Russia's birth rate is so low. I don't know what the state of their pension plans and welfare state is. However, it might be that the welfare state under the USSR for 70 years dissolved the tradition of kids supporting old parents, and if the welfare state no longer takes adequate care of the old, the younger generations may be caught between the "kids are expensive to have, not an economic asset" and "you need lots of kids to take care of you" realities.
Agricultural subsidies in the US and EU are the shame of the developed world. This is my most serious post ever. Having said that, I'm going to see if I can buy a bushel of sorghum on Overstock.com.