3 ms·

Some thoughts on your points: 1. True, but not radically different from the rest of Africa. Further the PPP figure is about $1700, which is a bit more indicati

Some thoughts on your points: 1. True, but not radically different from the rest of Africa. Further the PPP figure is about $1700, which is a bit more indicative of purchasing power / standard of wealth. 10% growth in Ethiopia may not be as impressive as say China growing 10%, but it's still 10% growth that few African countries can match consistently. Having $170 extra can mean better nutrition, a cellphone, a bicycle, communal investments etc. Moreover, it shows good prospects and stability, the type of conditions necessary to attract FDI and cheap borrowing rates going into the future. 2. Not really. Fertility rates tend to have a strong negative relationship with wealth. The best thing you can do to reduce fertility rates is improve economic prospects in a country. Populations aren't growing because fertility rates, they're going down. Populations are growing because general healthcare and life expectancy has improved radically in the past 50 years or so. 3. That's the case all over Africa, but rising tides lift all boats at least to some extent. I mean, take a look at South Korea. It had a dictatorship until the 80s and was extremely corrupt, we still see high-profile cases of corruption (right to the 43rd prime minister resigning on corruption charges in 2016). Corruption is obviously not desirable and indeed distributions benefits unevenly, but there are many countries (like Korea) which have a history of high-corruption and rapidly growing socioeconomic conditions of ordinary citizens.

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
1. I agree. I was pointing that out more to show that even with impressive growth rates they still have a long way to go. 2. I agree that TFR declines with wealth, but it is still true that if your population is growing your economy has to grow faster to compensate for it. I am not sure how quickly TFR falls as the economy grows. If it lags significantly this will still have an effect. 3. This one is trickier. There are large differences between the poor African countries and the previously poor Asian countries. The authoritarian governments in South Korea, Taiwan, and China actually helped these countries get out of poverty because they could enforce policies that otherwise would not be popular, like redistribution of land to peasants and protecting infant industries from foreign competition while they developed. Japan was a little different (actually so was China) but had similar policies. These policies are not being implemented in Africa. The corruption in Asia and the corruption in Africa are also of a different kind. South Korea allowed some corruption as long as the managers of the companies involved where able to produce globally competitive products. In Africa the corruption has largely enriched a small number of well connected people while doing nothing to help the local population. I am not sure how corrupt Ethiopia is. Either way, I wasn't talking about corruption as much as the difficulty of doing business in Ethiopia, which seems to be difficult if you do not already have money and connections, which suggests that the benefits of economic growth will be more concentrated than they otherwise could be and they have in the Asian countries that successfully emerged from poverty. Africa has had 50 years to adopt better policies, but instead we see frequent civil wars, endemic corruption, and poor governance. These problems aren't insurmountable, but they are large.
- RobertoG 8y ago
  I'm puzzled by your comment: >>" The authoritarian governments in South Korea, Taiwan, and China actually helped these countries get out of poverty because they could enforce policies that otherwise would not be popular, like redistribution of land to peasants and protecting infant industries from foreign competition while they developed." Those are not popular policies? do you mean popular for the IMF and the World bank or what?
  - jeffreyrogers 8y ago
    Well the land redistribution isn't popular with landowners, who tend to have a lot of power. The industry protection isn't popular with the IMF and World Bank and is often abused or helps corrupt people in government funnel money to their family and friends. You're probably right that sometimes there is popular support for these policies but it's hard to get them in place.
- ycomb477 8y ago
  The answer here is education. Build schools, problem solved.
  - dzonga 8y ago
    Zimbabwe built schools. But corrupted it's citizens.
  - jeffreyrogers 8y ago
    Schools don't help if there are no jobs after graduation, which is the case in much of Africa. The problems these countries face is staggering, not insurmountable, but really hard.

jeffreyrogers 8y ago

1. I agree. I was pointing that out more to show that even with impressive growth rates they still have a long way to go. 2. I agree that TFR declines with wealth, but it is still true that if your population is growing your economy has to grow faster to compensate for it. I am not sure how quickly TFR falls as the economy grows. If it lags significantly this will still have an effect. 3. This one is trickier. There are large differences between the poor African countries and the previously poor Asian countries. The authoritarian governments in South Korea, Taiwan, and China actually helped these countries get out of poverty because they could enforce policies that otherwise would not be popular, like redistribution of land to peasants and protecting infant industries from foreign competition while they developed. Japan was a little different (actually so was China) but had similar policies. These policies are not being implemented in Africa. The corruption in Asia and the corruption in Africa are also of a different kind. South Korea allowed some corruption as long as the managers of the companies involved where able to produce globally competitive products. In Africa the corruption has largely enriched a small number of well connected people while doing nothing to help the local population. I am not sure how corrupt Ethiopia is. Either way, I wasn't talking about corruption as much as the difficulty of doing business in Ethiopia, which seems to be difficult if you do not already have money and connections, which suggests that the benefits of economic growth will be more concentrated than they otherwise could be and they have in the Asian countries that successfully emerged from poverty. Africa has had 50 years to adopt better policies, but instead we see frequent civil wars, endemic corruption, and poor governance. These problems aren't insurmountable, but they are large.

RobertoG 8y ago
I'm puzzled by your comment: >>" The authoritarian governments in South Korea, Taiwan, and China actually helped these countries get out of poverty because they could enforce policies that otherwise would not be popular, like redistribution of land to peasants and protecting infant industries from foreign competition while they developed." Those are not popular policies? do you mean popular for the IMF and the World bank or what?
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  Well the land redistribution isn't popular with landowners, who tend to have a lot of power. The industry protection isn't popular with the IMF and World Bank and is often abused or helps corrupt people in government funnel money to their family and friends. You're probably right that sometimes there is popular support for these policies but it's hard to get them in place.
ycomb477 8y ago
The answer here is education. Build schools, problem solved.
- dzonga 8y ago
  Zimbabwe built schools. But corrupted it's citizens.
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  Schools don't help if there are no jobs after graduation, which is the case in much of Africa. The problems these countries face is staggering, not insurmountable, but really hard.