(this is so true and pragmatic)
So what we need to bring about is the end of the era of unresponsive and inefficient government and short-term thinking in government, so that the government is laying the groundwork, the framework, the foundation for the market to operate effectively and for every single individual to be able to be connected with that market and to succeed in that market. And it’s now a global marketplace.
The Maobaadi prime minister (Interview with Prachanda, the former rebel leader turned prime minister of Nepal)
Widening access to growth opportunities is possible when support policies are designed for facilitating the priority sectors. Hydropower, for example, is one of Nepal's top priority sectors to expand opportunities for growth. Even in a 1 MW construction site, fairly good employment opportunities can be created to displaced and landless populations. About 500 to 1000 people are normally needed per site in such a labor-intensive infrastructure projects.
Opportunities can also be created in tourism sector. It is the second largest sector after agriculture, which employs about 600,000 people with the estimation of generating US $205 million during 2007/08. Tourism can offer growth opportunity provided that serious efforts are made to increase its competitiveness in price index, human tourism, infrastructure, environment, technology, human resources, openness and social index.
The other areas for widening the growth opportunities include data processing; software development and computer consultancy services; generation and transmission of electricity; manufacture of paper and paper products; manufacture of motorcycles and scooters and parts thereof; and establishment and management of educational and health institutions.
Charles's fantasy farming won't feed Africa's poor (Paul Collier argues for genetic modification of crops to tackle global hunger; organic peasantry will not be enough)
...Organic peasant agriculture is a solution for the angst of affluence, but not hunger. Its apotheosis is the ban on GM crops.
...The GM ban has three adverse effects. It has retarded productivity in European agriculture; grain production could be increased by about 15% were the ban lifted. More subtly, because Europe is out of the market for GM technology, the pace of research has slowed. GM research takes a long time to come to fruition, and its core benefit - the permanent reduction of global food prices - cannot fully be captured through patents. European governments should be funding this research, but it is entirely reliant on the private sector. Private money for research depends on the prospect of sales, so the ban has not only blocked public research - it has reduced private research.
However, the worst consequence of the European ban is that it has terrified African governments - with the exception of South Africa - into banning genetic modification. They fear that growing modified crops would shut them out of European markets. Because Africa banned GM, there was no market for discoveries pertinent to the crops that Africa grows, and so no research. In turn, this has led to the critique that GM is irrelevant for Africa.
Africa cannot afford the GM ban. Its cities, fed by imports, need global prices to be low. Without cheap food the children of the urban poor will be malnourished. Africa's farmers, broadly self-sufficient, need higher productivity. Productivity per acre has stagnated, so rising production has depended on expanding the area under cultivation. But with population growth this option is running out.