4 ms·

Ending Famine, Simply by Ignoring the Experts

18 points by theoneill 19y ago

Tichy 19y ago
I doubt that this article gives the whole story. One question: why could the farmers not afford the fertilizer? Seems to me that if using it yields more than it costs, it should be possible to afford it (loans?)? On the other hand, if it doesn't make sense economically, giving it to the farmers for free just ensures that they will never have profitable businesses (ie perhaps instead of farming, they should do something else). Also, weren't many soils in Africa destroyed by the use of the wrong kind of fertilizer? I know that is too simplistic either, as for some reason they might have no choice but to be farmers. But then I suppose politics would be to blame, not the experts.
- DaniFong 19y ago
  There is an extreme lack of finance in the region, and for a land strapped farmer acquiring a loan is a near impossibility. It's hard to justify an investment for what is essentially subsistence farming, with a little surplus in good seasons (perhaps!). Undoubtedly some soils were taxes beyond what they could handle, but consider the alternative: slash and burn agriculture, or a steady crop rotation (hardly tenable when you need a crop this year, or your population dies!) I have to say, however, I disagree with the headline. There are economists who oppose agricultural subsidies in favor of globalization, and those who support them. In the case of Malawi and other, tiny nations, it is clear enough to most economists, even those formerly of the World Bank (say, Joseph Stiglitz) that the dangers of an economy reliant on cash crops subject to rapid price fluctuations are too dire. One plague, one drought, one bad season, and you're wiped out, and need to accept punitive terms from international lending agencies just to feed the populace. It's not like there was a consensus of experts the president was disregarding. Incidentally, one of the reasons, insufficiently mentioned, I believe, that subsistence agriculture can make sense even in semi-arid countries, is that it has a distribution network built in. Often times there is significant corruption in the distribution channels, other times they are simply disrupted by political upheaval, other times still the infrastructure simply isn't there, or is otherwise quite costly. The distribution of inorganic fertilizer, by contrast, is substantially easier, and it is much less vulnerable to political disruption. You need to move less of it, the demand is substantially less fixed (more is better, but less won't kill you) and less immediate (rebels and bandits can steal food and jack up prices -- not so much with fertilizer), and the economic benefit has much longer to reach everyone (a crop lasts longer than any given shipment of food).
ivankirigin 19y ago
What a typical way for the New York Times to reduce a complicated issue like farming and trade in Africa to a single phrase: "the free market failed". There is little free about markets in Africa, with or without subsidies for fertilizer in a particular country. We can certainly blame ourselves though, if not the experts advocating open markets and no subsidies: the West's tariffs, restrictions on imported agricultural products, and subsidies for rich farmers are directly related to problems in Africa. Farmers in Africa have a much harder time penetrating our markets because of these. Considering one of the first steps past subsistence farming is selling produce to global markets, these restrictions are a very big hurdle to development. The free market advocates, the "experts" derided in the article, have the most coherent ideas on this topic.
- patrocles 19y ago
  They also ignored what caused the famine in the first place, i.e. the continued subdivision of land amongst offspring. They have temporarily staved off famine, now they need to prevent it from happening again....

18 points by theoneill 19y ago

Tichy 19y ago

I doubt that this article gives the whole story. One question: why could the farmers not afford the fertilizer? Seems to me that if using it yields more than it costs, it should be possible to afford it (loans?)? On the other hand, if it doesn't make sense economically, giving it to the farmers for free just ensures that they will never have profitable businesses (ie perhaps instead of farming, they should do something else). Also, weren't many soils in Africa destroyed by the use of the wrong kind of fertilizer? I know that is too simplistic either, as for some reason they might have no choice but to be farmers. But then I suppose politics would be to blame, not the experts.

DaniFong 19y ago
There is an extreme lack of finance in the region, and for a land strapped farmer acquiring a loan is a near impossibility. It's hard to justify an investment for what is essentially subsistence farming, with a little surplus in good seasons (perhaps!). Undoubtedly some soils were taxes beyond what they could handle, but consider the alternative: slash and burn agriculture, or a steady crop rotation (hardly tenable when you need a crop this year, or your population dies!) I have to say, however, I disagree with the headline. There are economists who oppose agricultural subsidies in favor of globalization, and those who support them. In the case of Malawi and other, tiny nations, it is clear enough to most economists, even those formerly of the World Bank (say, Joseph Stiglitz) that the dangers of an economy reliant on cash crops subject to rapid price fluctuations are too dire. One plague, one drought, one bad season, and you're wiped out, and need to accept punitive terms from international lending agencies just to feed the populace. It's not like there was a consensus of experts the president was disregarding. Incidentally, one of the reasons, insufficiently mentioned, I believe, that subsistence agriculture can make sense even in semi-arid countries, is that it has a distribution network built in. Often times there is significant corruption in the distribution channels, other times they are simply disrupted by political upheaval, other times still the infrastructure simply isn't there, or is otherwise quite costly. The distribution of inorganic fertilizer, by contrast, is substantially easier, and it is much less vulnerable to political disruption. You need to move less of it, the demand is substantially less fixed (more is better, but less won't kill you) and less immediate (rebels and bandits can steal food and jack up prices -- not so much with fertilizer), and the economic benefit has much longer to reach everyone (a crop lasts longer than any given shipment of food).

ivankirigin 19y ago

What a typical way for the New York Times to reduce a complicated issue like farming and trade in Africa to a single phrase: "the free market failed". There is little free about markets in Africa, with or without subsidies for fertilizer in a particular country. We can certainly blame ourselves though, if not the experts advocating open markets and no subsidies: the West's tariffs, restrictions on imported agricultural products, and subsidies for rich farmers are directly related to problems in Africa. Farmers in Africa have a much harder time penetrating our markets because of these. Considering one of the first steps past subsistence farming is selling produce to global markets, these restrictions are a very big hurdle to development. The free market advocates, the "experts" derided in the article, have the most coherent ideas on this topic.

patrocles 19y ago
They also ignored what caused the famine in the first place, i.e. the continued subdivision of land amongst offspring. They have temporarily staved off famine, now they need to prevent it from happening again....