Solving the inequality problem in Africa?
A writer friend recently asked me to comment on the problem of inequality in subsaharan Africa — and how African governments should deal with it. I decided to respond through this blog.
As I started thinking about this, there was a live tv broadcast of Goldman Sachs Congressional hearings for their allegedly unethical practices and their supposed role in the recent financial crisis.
When will Western intellectuals realize that they don’t know how to solve Africa’s “inequality” problems if they don’t even know how to solve their own much smaller inequality issues?
Something that kept being repeated in the Goldman hearings is the fact that the crisis was rooted in the American government’s efforts to help the poor get loans for houses. Why? To reduce inequality in America. The people who were supposed to be helped are now jobless. So, here’s an idea for American experts who are obsessed with advising African nations: how about you first succeed in lifting your own internal “Africa” out of poverty?
The Goldman Sachs hearings overshadowed another big event in the news: the debt crisis in Greece. But they were both really about the same lesson: when the state tries to reduce inequality through any positive interventions to help the poor, they can only create a big disaster that will hit the same poor people hardest.
The only way the poor in any country can be helped is when government stops trying to help them and leaves that job to business forces. Every effort by the state to help the poor requires that they take something away from the business sector. In short they always make it harder for businesses to make money and thus to lift more people out of poverty.
Every single African country has tried to close the gap between the rich and the poor through state intervention and in every single case the result has been disastrous to different degrees, depending on how efficient the plan was. In Zambia, our first president, Kenneth Kaunda, even set a cap on how rich a Zambian could become (so that everyone could “rise together”). Thus it was official policy for the government to nationalize any Zambian owned business if it started making too much money for the owner. The result was to take Zambia from being one of the richest emerging states at independence to being an indigent failed state that is still struggling to recover.
The latest case is of course Zimbabwe, which tried to solve the “problem” of a few white farmers having more fertile land than the majority blacks (never mind that the produce from these farms fed the entire country; the problem of inequality was apparently more urgent). Mugabe grabbed this land and “redistributed” it. He decided to “spread the wealth around.” Again, the result was indeed reduced inequality: everyone became poorer, especially the poor, even while they owned more land.
Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result each time. So, after seeing this idea destroy every single African state that tried it, there is now growing pressure in South Africa to try it too. They believe the result will be different this time. Somehow.
May 18, 2010 at 7:23 am
Well said, even restating the obvious does not seem to sink into the thick liberal mind. Oh that they would have “eyes to see and ears to hear.”
May 18, 2010 at 7:26 am
Dear Chanda,
My response is with regards to the examples you gave on both Zambia and Zimbabwe. Zambia has lagged behind in terms of development not because of the policies pursued by Kaunda and co but due to many factors. let me address a few of them:
(1). The art of governance.
Unlike in India where natives were part of the civil service during colonial times, Zambians were only messagers or policemen in colonial governments. Hence Indian had learnt the art of governance by the time they got indepedence unlike Zambians who had to kearn how to run a government from the blues.
(2). Lack of visionary leaders
Prior to indepedence, most of the leaders of the struggles were thinking with their emotions instead of their heads. They promised the natives things that would cost the nation instead of adding value to it. Nationalisation of companies was not a bad idea in itself but how the management of those companies was done. Nothing was put in place to foster efficiency, effectiveness and accountability as everyone was drunk with the spirit of indepedence hence reaping the fruits came before the sowing.
(3). Parrot intellectualism
Our universities have produced quite a good number of well trained graduates who, given the right conditions, can help shape the direction of the country. Most have migrated to countries where they are valued. Others are nothing but parrot intellectual who cannot do anything new save for what they read in text books.
All in all, there are many factors that contributed to the zambian situation. With new public management and seriousness on the part of the leaders, Zambia would be better than Kenya, Botswana and namibia today.
May 21, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Thanks Chanda for this reflection. I think this is an intellectual and policy dilemna we humans finds ourselves in. While I agree with you that government’s intervention in terms of distributing goods freely to people (call it communism) wont bridge the gap of inequality, I dont agree that free market driven economies brings about equality. What we are seeing in the US and now in Greece (and we will see it more and more in Europe now as they lose grip on Africa’s natural resources) is that unbridled capitalism is not the answer by itself. So both governments and capitalism in themselves are antithetical to equality.
Unless we accept inequality as an existential reality on which we can do nothing and simply agree with Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory, we in Africa need to evolve a new system that will integrate a form of market regulation that not only empowers free markets to generate wealth and spin it around populations but also enables equitable distribution of means of production by governments. I think we here in Africa should not lose sight of this.
What do you think?
May 24, 2010 at 11:50 am
Dear,
I strongly feel that hegemony in a free market society justifies the inequalities and in a significant way, highlights the predicament we find ourselves in as a nation. The maintenance of hegemony, status quo at a broader scale through globalisation only empowers those with the means, to sustain their positions i.e. wealth, power and influence. This is evident in the US where the rich and powerful have determined the direction of some key policies. As seen through some bogus policies by our leaders in sub-sahara Africa, the few (politicians) have explored opportunities of self interest by engaging with foreigners in the name of investment yet these guys a hard core capitalists in search of profit, just profit through lobbying.