International Development and Economics
This past week I was able to go to a talk in the Dahnke
Ballroom given by Dr. Devarajan, an economist and international development
researcher. It was great because Dr. Devarajan talked about development and the intersection of
politics and economics, specifically how governments love to feel like they are fixing
social issues by having donors “solve market failures” and funding development
projects in order to seem more powerful.
The goal, Dr. Devarajan
said in his presentation, was for poverty to be reduced in many nations. His
data showed that while this did happen superficially, on the actual development
level these industries never took off and the development projects often
remained stagnant. Even
when big organizations such as the World Bank helped these projects take off,
surprisingly, or unsurprisingly when looking at the data, they still failed.
The
stats show that health and education enrollment are very high in
many of these targeted nations for “development improvement” but the quality of
care and graduation rates are alarming, which Dr. Devarajan described happens because
the social and political goals are “met” but in idealistic
ways. And even though there’s the best of intentions from these organizations, government
failures also lend to much of the problem. For example, he discussed the
problem of trade protection: instead of a trade boom and manufacturing boom,
when a trade protection policy was placed in a nation there were no jobs
created for the communities excepts for job that are “one person firms” (i.e. startups);
all other job creation was negative and basically destroyed in these nations.
Much of this idea can be applied to our next door neighbors Canada and Mexico,
with the NAFTA agreement where we see very similar statistics produced.
Another issue created was the monopolization
of firms, such as how the Ben Ali family in Tunisia have taken control of the
telecommunications market and banking market without competition from any other
group. These Ben Ali firms are
part of the government and profit by running these monopolies, but the
sad truth is that these markets produce only 0.08% of the nation’s total
employment. These cozy relationships
that mix the political and the social really negatively affect many
impoverished nations.
In rural
India for example, 80% of children in second grade cannot read a single word
even though they are enrolled in school. This
is because on average, 25% of the time the teacher is not there. Teachers in India are part of the
knowledgeable and influential portion of the population and are often political
campaigners (or even politicians themselves) and so these beneficial relationships
allow the teachers to not to have to do their jobs because in return for
getting politicians elected and politicians get the teacher a job with good pay
but where there is no accountability so that the teacher never has to show up.
Much of the money in these sectors:
education, health, and politics, is
kept by the government and very few of it is invested in these fields. Changes
in development assistance however are showing how putting political limits on
loans has a mixed result because sometimes interests are selfish. What actually
spurs action is getting the information to the public so that they demand what
they are due. This can only come through education and advocacy.
Comments
Post a Comment