5 ms·

Mauritius: A Glimmer of African Freedom

22 points by dpatru 16y ago

pmjordan 16y ago
Having visited Mauritius a few years ago as a tourist, I'd say they're probably missing out on an opportunity in tourism and maybe immigration. Outside the generic, polished beachfront hotel complexes, they seem to treat their otherwise beautiful island as a landfill. I don't think I've seen so much rubbish strewn around the countryside anywhere else. There's plenty there for tourists to explore, but (at least for us) the way the natives seem to treat their countryside was a major turn-off for future visits and recommending the place to others. Admittedly, this was a few years ago, and they may have since cleaned up their act. (I realise that attracting tourism can be a double-edged sword)
- borism 16y ago
  I've been there in 2007 too and I think you're wrong. If anything I think they're too dependent on tourism. And actually they seem to understand it by trying to diversify into tech and other industries. Regarding rubbish and immigration, the largest population group there are indians, the most disregard to rubbish seems to come from their culture (have you been to India?). But they're also the largest contributors to growing tech sector for example.
  - biaxident 16y ago
    The country is very dependent on tourism. However, the money generated isn't being pumped back into the country. People who visit on holiday say how wonderful the place is, beautiful beaches and clear blue seas. But move to other areas of the island and it's a completely different place. Walk 5 minutes down the road from the fanciest hotel and there's a shanty town. Mauritius certainly has a great opportunity and is probably better than a lot of the other African countries, but it still has a long way to go.
    - borism 16y ago
      well, I've been all around the island by car and sure the places locals live in are not posh, but far from being "shanty towns" you'll see in India (where many mauritians are coming from) or Brasil or most of Africa for that matter. But that's the "freedom" Mises Institute applauds - freedom for foreigners to invest in local industries but not contribute much back besides employment.
borism 16y ago
I recall not so long ago the freest country in Africa (and the whole World) by Mises Institute standarts was Somalia? http://mises.org/daily/2066 http://mises.org/daily/2066 http://blog.mises.org/7128/the-rule-of-law-without-the-state/ http://blog.mises.org/7128/the-rule-of-law-without-the-state... BTW, I love Mauritius!
- brc 16y ago
  Well, without a functioning central government, that probably was very true. With anything like this, you have to balance it with other indicators like life expectancy and quality of life indexes to get an overall picture of what it is like to live in the country.
  - notahacker 16y ago
    Instead of a functioning government you got traditional clan law, militia demanding protection money and offering nothing in return, and your route to the "free market" was greased by paying armed men collecting rents at checkpoints. . Of course, judging freedom using the Mises Institute benchmark of government spending being 0% of GDP left Somalia a surefire winner, but I'll happily trade some of that essential liberty for the second best of Western liberal democracy.
    - nika 16y ago
      I do not understand why it is popular to characterize somalia in this way. Have you got a reference to militias demanding money and offering nothing in return? It seems this would be a very dangerous thing to attempt in somalia, as the members of most tribes are pretty well armed and would not put up with this. Somalia is a tribal country with institutions that provide legal and judicial support for resolving disputes peacefully going back centuries. I'm sure they do have private roads, for which you have to pay a toll, but you have toll roads in many countries. I read one report that the pirates who were operating off of the somali coast operated like startups. One guy would put up some guns, others would put up labor, another the boat, some would stay ashore and provide financing or support. The profits would be divided among them according to their shares. The system works because the desire to go out again keeps them honest. The "pirates" effectively operate as the somali coast guard, going after ships that are in their states waters. These pirates were previously fisherman until china decided that they could start overfishing the area. So they go and collect tolls. I guess it is romantic to call them pirates, and it certainly serves the interests of the west to characterize somalia as a hellhole. But the primary problem facing somalia is not that they don't have a functioning society-- they do-- but that the western interests, specifically the US and the UK, keep making war on them. The UN created schools but the teachers are unmotivated, and so the somalis, who are generally relatively wealthy, set up private schools of their own. I have a friend who has been there and who worked on a proposal to put in a port and a road across some of the territory into ethiopia. However, the investors were scared off when an american general promised to "bomb the hell out of it" if they built the road and the port. So, my knowledge of the situation on the ground is dated a few years and mostly relevant to the north. But Somalia is actually a relatively safe, stable society, it exhibits a fair bit of success in free market principles and in operating without a state. They are able to provide security, and repel invasions for the most part, without a central government.
egor83 16y ago
I wonder what he was trying to say. Okay, taxes are lower there than in Germany or France, government spends less - but what are the effects? Do people live better there than in Europe? Are there any companies that prefer to do business in Mauritius rather than in Germany because of lower taxes? I understand that libertarians see low taxes and governmental nonintervention as good things, but his point would be much stronger if he showed any positive effects of these factors.
gopi 16y ago
Geographically Mauritius may be in africa but 70% of its population is of east indian orgin. So it enjoys a favourable tax treaty with India and thus most of the foreign investment into india flows thro mauritius. In a nutshell mauritius is to india what ireland/luxembourg is to europe!

22 points by dpatru 16y ago

Having visited Mauritius a few years ago as a tourist, I'd say they're probably missing out on an opportunity in tourism and maybe immigration. Outside the generic, polished beachfront hotel complexes, they seem to treat their otherwise beautiful island as a landfill. I don't think I've seen so much rubbish strewn around the countryside anywhere else. There's plenty there for tourists to explore, but (at least for us) the way the natives seem to treat their countryside was a major turn-off for future visits and recommending the place to others. Admittedly, this was a few years ago, and they may have since cleaned up their act. (I realise that attracting tourism can be a double-edged sword)

borism 16y ago
I've been there in 2007 too and I think you're wrong. If anything I think they're too dependent on tourism. And actually they seem to understand it by trying to diversify into tech and other industries. Regarding rubbish and immigration, the largest population group there are indians, the most disregard to rubbish seems to come from their culture (have you been to India?). But they're also the largest contributors to growing tech sector for example.
- biaxident 16y ago
  The country is very dependent on tourism. However, the money generated isn't being pumped back into the country. People who visit on holiday say how wonderful the place is, beautiful beaches and clear blue seas. But move to other areas of the island and it's a completely different place. Walk 5 minutes down the road from the fanciest hotel and there's a shanty town. Mauritius certainly has a great opportunity and is probably better than a lot of the other African countries, but it still has a long way to go.
  - borism 16y ago
    well, I've been all around the island by car and sure the places locals live in are not posh, but far from being "shanty towns" you'll see in India (where many mauritians are coming from) or Brasil or most of Africa for that matter. But that's the "freedom" Mises Institute applauds - freedom for foreigners to invest in local industries but not contribute much back besides employment.

borism 16y ago

I recall not so long ago the freest country in Africa (and the whole World) by Mises Institute standarts was Somalia? http://mises.org/daily/2066 http://mises.org/daily/2066 http://blog.mises.org/7128/the-rule-of-law-without-the-state/ http://blog.mises.org/7128/the-rule-of-law-without-the-state... BTW, I love Mauritius!

brc 16y ago
Well, without a functioning central government, that probably was very true. With anything like this, you have to balance it with other indicators like life expectancy and quality of life indexes to get an overall picture of what it is like to live in the country.
- notahacker 16y ago
  Instead of a functioning government you got traditional clan law, militia demanding protection money and offering nothing in return, and your route to the "free market" was greased by paying armed men collecting rents at checkpoints. . Of course, judging freedom using the Mises Institute benchmark of government spending being 0% of GDP left Somalia a surefire winner, but I'll happily trade some of that essential liberty for the second best of Western liberal democracy.
  - nika 16y ago
    I do not understand why it is popular to characterize somalia in this way. Have you got a reference to militias demanding money and offering nothing in return? It seems this would be a very dangerous thing to attempt in somalia, as the members of most tribes are pretty well armed and would not put up with this. Somalia is a tribal country with institutions that provide legal and judicial support for resolving disputes peacefully going back centuries. I'm sure they do have private roads, for which you have to pay a toll, but you have toll roads in many countries. I read one report that the pirates who were operating off of the somali coast operated like startups. One guy would put up some guns, others would put up labor, another the boat, some would stay ashore and provide financing or support. The profits would be divided among them according to their shares. The system works because the desire to go out again keeps them honest. The "pirates" effectively operate as the somali coast guard, going after ships that are in their states waters. These pirates were previously fisherman until china decided that they could start overfishing the area. So they go and collect tolls. I guess it is romantic to call them pirates, and it certainly serves the interests of the west to characterize somalia as a hellhole. But the primary problem facing somalia is not that they don't have a functioning society-- they do-- but that the western interests, specifically the US and the UK, keep making war on them. The UN created schools but the teachers are unmotivated, and so the somalis, who are generally relatively wealthy, set up private schools of their own. I have a friend who has been there and who worked on a proposal to put in a port and a road across some of the territory into ethiopia. However, the investors were scared off when an american general promised to "bomb the hell out of it" if they built the road and the port. So, my knowledge of the situation on the ground is dated a few years and mostly relevant to the north. But Somalia is actually a relatively safe, stable society, it exhibits a fair bit of success in free market principles and in operating without a state. They are able to provide security, and repel invasions for the most part, without a central government.

egor83 16y ago

I wonder what he was trying to say. Okay, taxes are lower there than in Germany or France, government spends less - but what are the effects? Do people live better there than in Europe? Are there any companies that prefer to do business in Mauritius rather than in Germany because of lower taxes? I understand that libertarians see low taxes and governmental nonintervention as good things, but his point would be much stronger if he showed any positive effects of these factors.

gopi 16y ago

Geographically Mauritius may be in africa but 70% of its population is of east indian orgin. So it enjoys a favourable tax treaty with India and thus most of the foreign investment into india flows thro mauritius. In a nutshell mauritius is to india what ireland/luxembourg is to europe!