The worldwide obsession with poverty eradication is a major threat to economic freedom in developing nations. Through central planning, governments and aid agencies are blocking poor people’s road to prosperity.
The United Nations' Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) project --
which seeks to magically reduce worldwide poverty by half before 2015 -- is the
most popular, and disastrous, plan. The MDG
Secretariat is urging developed countries to double their foreign aid, which
aid it proposes will be used to promote UN programs on extreme hunger; primary
education; gender equality; child mortality; maternal health; HIV/AIDS, malaria
and other diseases; environmental sustainability; and global partnership for
development. The UN claims that poverty would be history if those issues were
addressed.
|
water of life
|
But it simply isn't so! Recent history directs that things would actually be worse, considering that poor
nations are being encouraged to spend more on these resource heavy programs. This
would widen avenues of corruption and increase budget imbalances, both of which
have crippled Third World economies for decades.
Then
enter the Bretton Woods Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP). Developing nations must submit these as requisites for foreign aid and debt relief. In
these papers governments are required to describe the "macroeconomic and structural policies to be used in the promotion of
broad-based growth and poverty reduction," as well as indicate the
amount of foreign aid needed. Failure to submit convincing PRSPs is suicidal to
countries like Uganda,
where foreign aid (pdf)
accounts for over 50 percent of government spending. This means empowering
seasoned bureaucrats with the task of developing these nations' master plans
against poverty. William
Easterly, author of The White Man's Burden, wonders why such powers
are given to bureaucrats, instead of to the individuals who would actually reduce poverty
through enterprise.
The resulting economic policies end up appeasing donor agencies at the cost
of robbing poor people of the opportunities to improve their life situation. Their strong
emphasis on ending poverty through welfare programs and intergovernmental
transfers is creating a mentality that governments exist not to preserve
liberty but rather to improve lives through tax money and donor funds. Thus
instead of pushing for institutional reforms that would confine governments to
protecting life, liberty, and property, and providing market-friendly
environments, Third World civil societies are pushing for more transparency and
accountability in their nations' wealth-transfer systems. Their goal is to make
governments behave like flawless conduits of distribution. But that will never
happen; government planning will only prevent the establishment of long-run
market solutions to poverty.
Economic Freedom
Two independent projects (one by the Cato and Fraser institutes and the
other by the Heritage Foundation and Wall
Street Journal) have consistently found that economic prosperity is
greater in countries whose governments stick to the role of protecting life,
liberty, and property. These findings confirm Frederic Bastiat's claim in The Law that
economically prosperous people are to be found in:
countries where the law least interferes with private
affairs; where government is least felt; where the individual has the greatest
scope, and free opinion the greatest influence; where administrative powers are
fewest and simplest; where taxes are lightest and most nearly equal, and
popular discontent the least excited and the least justifiable; where
individuals and groups most actively assume their responsibilities, and,
consequently, where the morals of admittedly imperfect human beings are
constantly improving; where trade, assemblies, and associations are the least
restricted; where labor, capital, and populations suffer the fewest forced
displacements; where mankind most nearly follows its own natural inclinations;
where the inventions of men are most nearly in harmony with the laws of God.
True for All Nations
The success of economic freedom in bringing forth prosperity holds
true for all nations. Comparing three neighboring East African countries (Kenya,
Uganda, and Tanzania)
tells it all. Two decades of different levels of economic freedom (see graph)
have produced different economic fortunes in these countries. According to the
2007 Human Development Report, Uganda,
reported to be East Africa's freest economy by the Heritage rankings,
has managed to reduce abject poverty from 56 percent of the population in 1990
to 31.1 percent in 2006. The country has continued to sustain the region's
highest annual per capita productivity ($1,478), highest life expectancy (48.4
yrs), and highest education enrollment ratio (66.1 percent). Kenya,
second after Uganda
in economic freedom, comes second in all measures; her abject-poverty rate
dropped from 48 percent in 1990 to 45.5 percent in 2006. Annual per capita
productivity currently stands at $1,140, life expectancy at 47.5 years, and the
education enrollment ratio at 60.1 percent. Tanzania,
with the least economic freedom of the trio, lags in all measures: its
abject-poverty rate rose by 5 percentage points (from 28 percent in 1990 to
33.3 percent in 2006), per capita productivity stands at $674, and life
expectancy at 45.9 years. The country has a sorry education enrollment ratio of
47.1 percent.
|
Robinson Crusoe at work
|
The Ugandan example is testament that free people can indeed pull themselves
up from poverty. The scale of their economic activities does not matter, as
long as they want to improve their lives through the best means they know --
whether as subsistence farmers or micro-entrepreneurs. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman
referred to them as a collection of Robinson Crusoes who cooperate in the
production of goods and services.
Poverty
is escaped when the small economic interactions expand into more efficient
enterprises. This is aided by the existence of strong market-friendly
environments that Cato and Fraser describe as better protection of private
property, proper enhancement of contract laws, stable monetary environment, low
taxes, elimination of trade barriers, and the allocation of goods and resources
through the market process. But instead of providing that, governments,
especially in developing nations, regard rising enterprises as sources of
revenue to be milked through business licenses, fees, and taxes. Farmers are
seen as time-wasters who cannot succeed without government help and who thus
are coerced into selling their commodities through government marketing boards.
Such boards helped wreck coffee farming in Kenya,
cocoa in Ghana,
and tobacco in Malawi.
Small traders are seen as economic nuisances who need to be eliminated
altogether. Such interventions end up destabilizing small-scale enterprises
that already account for huge portions of these nations' economic output.
To reverse that trend, economic freedom needs to be seen as a development
partner. Governments must understand that providing market-friendly
environments will enable their societies to develop long-lasting solutions to
economic problems and, as Friedman wrote in Capitalism and Freedom,
"reduce the range of issue that must be resolved through [ineffective]
political means."
The writer is a Research Fellow at the
Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). This article was written for the
foundation's In Brief.
|
Very well written, its a debate we have visited many times over on this forum. The opinions are wide ranging and on occassions have polarised the readership here, along the lines of those for or against Aid to Africa. My view is weaning Africa off Aid is going to be a painful, time consuming process, the idea that we will wake up tomorrow not needing a dime in aid is delusional. Alot of systems depend on it(aid), some by design are sustained by it and will cease to exist if the taps are turned off. We owe it to ourselves and posterity not to be dependent on foreign Aid. Acknowledging our current state is a good first step, better economic planning and management will get us there, not wishful thinking.