2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
3 U. of California at Berkeley
6 Yale U.
10 U. of California at San Diego
* An institution may appear more than once if the discipline is related to more than one department.
Source: The Chronice of Higher Education (HT: The Bayesian Heresy)
May and Guengant, in a commentary (Africa's greatest challenge is to reduce fertility) in today's FT, argue that reducing fertility in Africa is the key to Africa's development and its prospects for full integration into the global economy.
Sub-Saharan Africa -- Population Projections
...The persistent high fertility levels imply that population growth will continue despite the Aids epidemic. In mid-2007, sub-Saharan Africa had 788m people – 12 per cent of the world’s population. This share will increase to 18 per cent in 2050, or 1.8bn people. This assumes that African women would then have 2.5 children on average, against 5.5 today, according to the United Nations 2006 population projections. However, these projections imply rapid declines in fertility levels that are far from guaranteed, except in southern Africa. Higher 2050 population figures, potentially reaching 2bn or more, are plausible if fertility declines more slowly.
...slower population growth will help reduce the pressures countries face with food security, land tenure, environmental degradation and water supply...It will also ease the security problems that are often the result of conflicts over scarce resources, which are exacerbated by unsustainably high rates of population growth and widespread youth unemployment.
...growth rates in the order of 6 per cent per year translate into only half that level per capita because of the current pace of demographic growth...Unless fertility declines, attainment of the millennium development goals will remain an ever-receding mirage.
Doesn't this resonate old-school Malthusian arguments? Greg Clark makes similar kind of arguments in his book A Farewell to Alms. Though true that population increase impacts poverty reduction efforts, especially if fertility is high among poor neighborhoods, I do not think that it is a sticking bone to Africa's development. Does this mean that we should abandon all our livelihood generation and economic development efforts and focus on reducing fertility rates? With more than 24.1% of the population suffering from HIV/AIDS and population growth rate of around 1.4% in Botswana, I don't think fertility is a hinge to Botswana's development. We have clearly seen that improvements in political and economic institutions led to an impressive growth rate of over 5% in almost three decades in Botswana, which is seen as an example of how good institutions lead to high growth rate and development. Putting the whole blame on population growth for stagnant development is not fair to the African continent. The continent lacks (also fails) development because of political instability, HIV/AIDS, bad institution, natural resource curse (chiefly oil and diamond) followed by widespread corruption, low level of education, bad infrastructure, lack of rule of law, and adverse climatic conditions, among others. Also check out Paul Collier's book The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done about It and the development traps (conflict, natural resources, landlocked with bad neighbors, and bad governance). If you can't get hold of Collier's book, then check out this review- the blogger does a good job summarizing the book.
P.S.: For those who are interested in the role of institutions and how it shapes economic policies, plus the top-down and bottom-up approach, see this recent paper by William Easterly: Institutions: Top Down or Bottom Up
The Economist has an interesting and insightful article about how the "rule of law" argument evolved and made its way into the mainstream economics, especially development economics. Also see what Rodrik feels about The Economist magazine and this recent article!
...Economists became fascinated by the rule of law after the crumbling of the “Washington consensus”. This consensus, which was economic orthodoxy in the 1980s, held that the best way for countries to grow was to “get the policies right”—on, for example, budgets and exchange rates. But the Asian crisis of 1997-98 shook economists' confidence that they knew which policies were, in fact, right. This drove them to re-examine what had gone wrong. The answer, they concluded, was the institutional setting of policymaking, especially the rule of law. If the rules of the game were a mess, they reasoned, no amount of tinkering with macroeconomic policy would produce the desired results.
..."300% dividend"...a country's income per head rises by roughly 300% if it improves its governance by one standard deviation (Daniel Kaufmann and Aart Kraay)...
Economists have repeatedly found that the better the rule of law, the richer the nation...Every rich country with the arguable exceptions of Italy and Greece scores well on rule-of-law measures; most poor countries do not.
The World Bank is now running such projects (narrowly defined) worth almost $450m; on a wider definition, almost half the bank's total lending of $24 billion in 2006 had some rule-of-law component (for example, advice on conflict resolution in village-development projects, or on bankruptcy law in privatisation programmes). In roughly a decade the rule of law has gone from a specialist political and legal topic into a staple of economic thinking and the subject of a vast aid-giving effort.
...Among other proponents of a thick definition (of rule of law) are Friedrich Hayek, an Austrian economist, and Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago. In their view, the rule of law includes elements of political morality.
...Thin definitions (of rule of law) are more formal. The important things, on this account, are not democracy and morality but property rights and the efficient administration of justice. Laws must provide stability. They do not necessarily have to be moral or promote human rights.
...One account of growth—associated with Douglass North of Washington University in St Louis, Missouri—is “institutional”. It focuses on the importance of property rights, transaction costs and economic organisation. On this view, stable, predictable laws encourage investment and growth. Thin definitions of the rule of law fit this well.The other—associated with Amartya Sen of Harvard—says that if you expand people's “capabilities” (Mr Sen's term), they will do things that help countries grow rich. Freeing people to take advantage of their capabilities usually means lifting the oppressive burden of the state and guaranteeing certain basic rights—a much thicker concept.
...But as a generalisation, the efforts of the past few years have thrown up mixed messages. They suggest the rule of law can be improved sharply; that rule-of-law reform is at root a political not a technical undertaking; and that it is linked to growth, if weakly in the short term. But they do not really bear out the assertion that the rule of law is an underlying prerequisite for growth. Rather, the more economists find out about the rule of law, the more desirable it seems—and the more problematic as a universal economic guide.
The Poultry Association of Uganda (PAU) has proposed the government of Uganda to introduce One-Egg-Per-Child (OEPC)program in all the primary schools in order to increase child nutrition and reduce child poverty caused by undernutrition or malnutrition. The other rationale for this program is to stimulate local rural economy, which depends on small-scale production (agriculture). It seems to be a perfectly feasible program to at least pump up demand for eggs and spur lagging rural economy because this industry does not require sophisticated capital or large scale investment. Chickens can be raised in individual household, with investment and space ranging from small to medium scale, and household surplus/wastes can be used as to feed chickens. This reduces wastages (or say transferring deadweight loss from an inefficient activity to a all-gain activity!!). Eggs hatched by chickens could then be sold to a government agency responsible for distribution to primary school all over the country.
This could be a perfectly viable and effective government investment to: (a) reduce the level of child malnutrition/undernutrition, (b) help reduce child poverty arising from hunger/malnutrition, (c) spur local rural economy, which could form a solid base of the economy for the meantime, (d) help increase household income, thus reduce income poverty, and (e) encourage SMEs to invest in this sector. The final multiplier effect would be large and consumption level for the whole economy would go up (remember, poor have more marginal propensity to consume) as a marginal increase in income of poor households would encourage them to invest or save more than well-off households. What a 'win-win' situation for all the parties concerned!
The name sounds like OLPC program but OEPC would be less costly, stimulates local economy, helps reduce poverty, and increase school enrollment rates (remember, scores of school nutrition programs in the US have led to increase in enrollment rates in schools in marginalized communities!).
This is how the "egg multiplier" would work:
...The proposal is to start with at least three eggs per week for every child. Each egg will cost sh150, adding up to sh5,400 for a full term. Basing on 7.3 million children under the Universal Primary Education programme, assuming there are 250 school days in a year, 61,284,608 trays of eggs would be required. To meet this demand, 8,457,300 layers would be needed from local hatcheries. "This will raise the market for layer chicks," says Dr Flavio Oliviera of PAU. At the moment, there are around 3 million hybrid chicken, inclusive of layers and broilers.
Farmers who produce raw materials used for making chicken feed will also benefit. For this project, feed mills will have to produce 21,143 tonnes of chick and duck mash, 54,972 tonnes of growers feed and 14,407 tonnes of layer mash per year. "Over 490,522 tonnes of locally produced materials are needed. Maize alone at an inclusion rate of 30% in feed would be 147,156 tonnes," Oliviera says.
...If an average farmer rears at least 200 layers, a total of 42,286 people across the country will be directly employed in the poultry sector. Each of these farmers would be producing three trays of eggs per day, earning around sh10,000...
In nutrition content, an egg has 13.2% protein, 11.1% fats, 0.65% energy and 0.9% minerals. The largest advantage of eggs is that they cannot be contaminated. An egg is also easy to store and can last much longer.
On Wednesday I attended a conference on Linking Agriculture, Development and Migration: A Critical Look at NAFTA Past, Present and Future in D.C. It was organized by a host of organization working on trade related issues. The conference was pretty interesting in the sense that almost all the speakers showed some form of discontent with the current NAFTA deal, which was crafted in 1994. The main reasons for discontent was that NAFTA has not been deliver what it was supposed to as per the initial agreement. It was hoped that NAFTA would bring prosperity and increase trade volume in all the three countries but evidences from all the three countries point to the other direction. Almost all the speakers were complaining about job loss, increase in poverty rates, internal and external displacement, destruction of countryside economy, widening inequality, and increasing poverty, among others.
US Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) was very critical of the current NAFTA deal. While arguing that since NAFTA was sealed the US trade deficit has soared to $1 trillion and shift of low-skilled jobs, she also argued that current model of trade agreement is clearly not working. She argued that renegotiation is essential to encompass genuine concerns about agriculture subsidies and cross-border migration. She did not sound protectionist but was arguing in a way to protect American interests, both agricultural and financial. I was wondering why she only mentioned trade deficit and did not talk about capital account surplus contributed by big US financial institutions operating in Mexico.
Meanwhile, Victor Quintana, deputy of the state of Chihuahua, Mexico was more vociferous and critical about the unfair NAFTA deal. He argued that NAFTA has done more harm than good to the Mexican economy. True, on the surface trade volume has increased by manifolds but this does not depict the true picture of the economy. He gave pretty objective and justifiable arguments against the unfair trade deal, which many argue was signed to benefit big corporate business and transnational companies. He was also arguing for renegotiation of the original deal keeping in mind the real dynamics rather than the ideological/theoretical issues forwarded by influential interest groups. His main points were that after NAFTA:
Mexico lost food sovereignty; per capita food production was 11% lower than 20 years before
There was no integration in real sense because there was no complementary investment (investment flowed from US to Mexico but benefits went back to the US)
Trade has benefited a small number of companies and group of people; inequality is rising rapidly
80% of the agriculture business is controlled by big transnational companies; indigenous people are stripped off farming
Lost two million jobs in the countryside- completely opposite results than what was expected
Now 70% of the rural population lives in poverty
The most insightful stuff came from Peter Julian, MP from Canada. He provided a compelling argument for overhauling the current NAFTA deal to accommodate the ground realities facing all the three economies. He revealed that big corporate businesses were gaining in such an astronomical amount that they themselves found it difficult to divulge yearly earnings and profits from the deal since 1994. He said that his team in Canada had to fight for the information on earning earned by a handful of big businesses. It appeared that only big businesses were gaining from the deal. He constantly repeated Saving NAFTA from cheerleaders, which reminded me of Dani Rodrik’s popular paper “How to Save Globalization From Its Cheerleaders.” Also see this one. Some of the effects of NAFTA on the Canadian economy are as below:
Decline in permanent jobs; increase in temporary jobs with no pension and health insurance…”non-family instability” in rise
Rise in family debt (almost 150% since 1989)
Farm income decline by 78%
20% of the wealthiest people earn half of all income earnings in Canada
Upper middle class has seen status quo in income earning. Meanwhile, middle class has lost one week of income since 1989
Lowe middle income group has last 2 weeks of income earning
The poorest quintile has lost one and a half month of income earning
300,000 Canadians are homeless
The other speaker was a Mexican senator Yeidckol Polevnsky who was even more critical of the NAFTA deal. Since she spoke in Spanish, I had to use a microphone transmitter… it was not cool at all! She argued that since the trade deal, Mexico lost competitiveness (earlier its ranking was 31, now it is 58…source?), increased poverty level (48% before NAFTA, now it is 52%), increased illegal migration from Mexico, and benefits went to big companies only. She seemed to be the ultimate pessimist /nationalist among the speakers. She repeatedly argued that there is no playing field in trade right now and competitiveness is skewed in transnational companies’ favor.
I was curious and asked a question about what exactly “renegotiation” means and whether the revision, if any to be done in future, would be a step backward from the current deal? Well, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur went before the session was over, so I did not hear US lawmaker’s perspective firsthand. The MP from Canada directly addressed my question and argued that the rise in inequality, job losses and skewed results in favor of a select few big businesses was a testament of the fact that the deal was already a step backward. He was essentially saying that the deal made countries worse off than they were before the deal. So, he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA to accommodate these genuine concerns and realities and come up with a viable, pragmatic solution. Victor Quintana argued that renegotiation should accommodate protectionist policy space to stop exploitation and ensure that the livelihood of countryside is kept alive by aiding corn, rice, and beans production. The Senator from Mexico offered more gloomy arguments saying that NAFTA has been a disgrace and horrible to Mexican economy as a whole. She was critical of a deal which would allow secondhand vehicles to be sold in the Mexican market, irrespective of quality and safety standards.
The first session seemed as if the whole session’s purpose was to denounce NAFTA deal. I do share the feeling that NAFTA is not working but we also cannot brand that it is not totally working. But as a whole, it is true that inequality is increasing, select few are gaining astronomically, and the poorest are the hardest hit. A comfortable policy space should be left for domestic policy maneuvering in any future renegotiation. As always: to ensure fairness, we should protect the deals from the cheerleaders!
I will write about interesting stuff that emerged in other sessions when I am not busy. I will try to find some time during my internship tomorrow to write something more about the other sessions.
This paper highlights the necessity for building and strengthening economic and political institutions to create as many as 100 million new jobs in the next decade to accommodate the increasing number of entrants into the labor force in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) regions. Past inefficient institutions have now made it difficult to manage massive labor force in the region, raising concerns for potential social instability and high youth unemployment. Successful reforms are possible if we build a strong link between democratic governance and market economies, the paper suggests. This includes privatizing the inefficient state-owned monopolies, decentralizing political and economic power, strengthening democratic governance, reforming the increasing labor market and regulations, and stimulating small-level private initiatives, among others.
This reform paper from the Center for International private Enterprise states that for sustained growth and development, the region must reform its economic and political institutions. High on agenda are: responsive governance and vibrant private sector.
Highlights:
Building market institutions
Developing political institutions
Strengthening the rule of law
Empowering women and youth
Creating space for the private sector
Improving access to information
Enabling private sector input
Combating corruption
Something more on MENA from the paper:
GDP growth rate was 6.3% in 2006
FDI was $24.4 billion in 2007- a 40% y-on-y increase and 3x larger than in 2004
Morocco experienced drought in 2007, the only country to suffer from drought in MENA in 2007
The region ranks bottom in political freedom and governance indicators
P.S.: Today I am attending a conference on "Linking Agriculture, Development and Migration: A Critical Look at NAFTA Past, Present, and Future" in D.C. I already attended one session and will attend one more in the afternoon. Interesting stuff about NAFTA and how policy makers from the US, Mexico, and Canada feel about the current trade agreement. Check back later for a summary of the conference proceedings. Pretty novel and justifiable ideas have been floated. High on agenda and buzz words are: Inequality, and Renegotiation.
The Indian government has recently decided to cancel the entire debt of small farmers that will cost it around $15 billion (IRs 600 billion). The farm loan relief is to be offered to all farmers with less than two hectares of land. It is an ambitious program and if it works as planned, then it will provide a huge relief to the debt-crunched poor farmers in rural India, which will help stimulate the rural economy. It is going to be a long shot. It will help farmers free from grips of the feudal societies, reduce suicides rates, and most importantly stimulate rural economy and reduction in poverty. The newest budget has made a great leap forward in social welfare spending, with 20% increase in education and 15% increase in health expenditures. Along with the loan waiver for the selected group, the government has also decided to give a 25% rebate for all farm loans regardless of farm size or loan distress.
With growth rates at 8.7% and rising inflation, critics have labeled the new ambitious welfare program a "populist pre-election budget" and have speculated that it will put upward pressure in price level. Though this new move from the government has received some applause (including from me!), some economists are worried about rising fiscal deficit and inflation, competitiveness in the banking sector, and rising inflation. However, this program is supposed to be more effective than previous ones because rebates are to be distributed directly to the targeted groups. Unlike in the past when banks were used as intermediaries to achieve such socio-political goals, this time the exchequer would directly distribute rebates to the genuinely distressed ones.
Critics have argued that it will hamper competitiveness in the banking sector and temper incentives in the market. If you are a farmer and you think that the government is going to give debt relief after some years, then naturally you will be less interested in paying off loans. A distressing form of moral hazard? Meanwhile, if banks know that their loans to farmers are going to be written off in some years, then the quality of the credit market would go downhill. More here, and here
This line of argument is completely valid but one has to consider historical factors and the ability of the farmers before arguing against these new reformative measures by the state. If you look at more than 800 million poor farmers from the rural areas, it is not difficult to realize that they have not been touched by rising economic growth Indian has achieved for the past two decades. The enormous revenue generation in recent years has to be redistributed efficiently so that the poor people do not feel left out. And, given the status quo, the poor farmers would in no way be able to pay off bank loans and loans from landlords (remember the age-old Adhi system, or sharecropping, in rural India). Without debt cancellation, the poor farmers would pass on debt (principal plus exorbitant interest) to their children, thus making debt servicing a generation phenomena. When will they get rid of this vicious cycle? Neither they can do it on their own nor the market would come up with a solution. The government has to step in to break the cycle and relive the farmers from long overdue debts that is holding their progress and keeping them and their families in poverty for years.
Though I believe that market is the best solution in the long run, in cases like this the state has to take a lead role to make sure that the real market forces work as they should in a level playing field. Without correcting the centuries old feudal system, including generation-passing debt structure in rural areas, it is hard to imagine that markets would find a solution to this issue. Markets did not work until now, and if the government plans to intervene then we should support it. I think it will have similar effect, though in varying proportion, as that of a stimulus package in the US. The rural economy needs to be freed from clutches of feudal regressive market structure, corrected immediately, and stimulated to help people fight poverty. There might be some problems and frauds cases of eligibility, but I don't think this move will seriously dampen market incentives. It is a corrective measure and this one is to be done in such a way that implementation bypasses the corrupt state administration.
We can find similar kind of problems in other South Asian nations, including Nepal. Recently, the Nepali government had decided to reserve jobs for marginalized groups in all state ranks. Considering the historical, cultural, and caste-based discriminated job market, I think it is a good move. Still wonder why? Read this article.
