Regions
Categories
These articles have appeared in newspapers worldwide, including:
2001, Venezuela
Accra Daily Mail
The Age, Australia
Al Ahram, Egypt
Al Ahali, Iraq
Al Arab, Qatar
Assabaha, Morocco
The Arusha Times, Tanzania
The Australian
Bangkok Post
Boston Globe, USA
Boston Herald, USA
Botswana Guardian
Business Daily, Kenya
Business Day, South Africa
Business Recorder, Pakistan
Chicago Sun-Times, USA
Chicago Tribune, USA
China Post, Taiwan
Daily Mail, UK
Daily Monitor, Uganda
Daily Monitor, Ethiopia
Daily Nation, Thailand
Daily News, Egypt
Daily Pioneer, India
Daily Telegraph, UK
Daily Times, Malawi
Daily Yomiuri, Japan
DC Examiner, USA
Der Tagesspiegel, Germany
Duluth News Tribune, USA
Eagle-Tribune, USA
East Brunswick Home News Tribune, USA
Economic Times, India
El Diario de Hoy, El Salvador
El Panamá América, Panama
European Voice, Belgium
Financial Express, India
Fort Worth Star-Telegram, USA
The Forum, USA
Frontier Post, Pakistan
Ghanaian Times
Globe & Mail, Canada
Hamilton Spectator, Canada
Hindustan Times, India
The Independent, Zimbabwe
International Herald Tribune, World
Investors Business Daily, USA
Iowa City Press Citizen, USA
Iran Daily
The Island, Sri Lanka
Jerusalem Post
Jordan Times
Korea Herald
Korea Times
Manila Times
Miami Herald, USA
Modern Ghana
La Nación, Argentina
La Nación, Costa Rica
The Namibian
The Nation, Thailand
National Review, USA
Nature, UK
New Statesman, UK
New Straits Times, Malaysia
New Times, Rwanda
New Vision, Uganda
New York Sun, USA
New Zealand Herald
Omaha World Herald, USA
Philippines Star
Providence Journal, USA
The Pioneer, India
The Post, Pakistan
The Post, Zambia
The Post, Cameroon
Le Potentiel, DR Congo
La Prensa, Nicaragua
Pueblo Chieftain, USA
Le Quotidien, Senegal
Al Rai Alaam, Kuwait
La Republica, Costa Rica
Rwanda Times
Salisbury Review, UK
San Francisco Chronicle, USA
The Scotsman, UK
Siglo XXI, Guatemala
South China Morning Post, Hong Kong
The Spectator, UK
The Standard, Hong Kong
State Journal Register, USA
The Statesman, Ghana
Straits Times, Singapore
Taipei Times
Taiwan News
The Times, UK
Times Herald, USA
Times of Zambia
This Day, Nigeria
Tucson Citizen, USA
Turkish Daily News
Wall Street Journal, World
Washington Post, USA
Washington Times, USA
Windsor Star, Canada
Yorkshire Post, UK
Similar Articles
Let citizens tackle powerful producer lobbies to get free trade back on track8 Aug 2006
Doha was not defeated by intransigent trade negotiators. Rather, the culprits were self-seeking domestic interest groups on all sides, which hinder national governments from making further trade “concessions”.
The Milton Friedman I remember: Inspirational
24 Nov 2006
Friedman has been - and will continue to be - an inspiration to those of us who were lucky enough to know him, or who have learnt from him. History will no doubt see him as one of the great minds of modern times.
Famine amid plenty
29 Jan 2007
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation has at last admitted that food aid can distort local markets, helping to perpetuate the conditions that demand food aid in the first place. But it does not go far enough in addressing the root causes of famines, which persist amid plenty.
Colombia-US: free trade good for both nations
6 Apr 2007
A deal on the Colombia-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is teetering under fire from Democrats and labour unions who claim that Colombia does not deserve it - but an entire people must not be punished when they could be saved by the FTA.
Doha's failure was a triumph for vested interests
31 Jul 2006
The failure of the Doha Round was a victory for anti-trade lobbies throughout the world, but a betrayal of the poor.
Similar Posts
Agriculture in Africa17 Jan 2008
In December, there was an interesting article in the International Herald Tribune, which discussed how crop yields in Malawi were improved through fertilizer subsidies (i.e. the title of the article, "Ending famine, simply by ignoring the experts" -- the "experts" being those who advised the Malawian government not to give such subsidies). However, the article doesn't examine the underlying causes of lack of means to acquire fertilizer, seeds and other agricultural inputs (etc)...
New report shows that donor-supported local drug production harms patients
5 Feb 2008
A new study (PDF link) published today by the Campaign for Fighting Diseases shows that local drug production is not always best. It shows that donor agencies such as the World Bank are trying to defy this basic law of economics by trying to foster local production in entirely inappropriate markets...
Bill Gates throwing good money after bad
7 Feb 2008
During the annual World Economy Forum in Davos, Bill Gates announced that The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had set up a US$300 million fund to improve agriculture in the developing world, particularly Africa. For someone who built his fortune in free markets, it is odd that Bill Gates should believe that large amounts of money alone can fight hunger and poverty in the long-term. William Easterly, author of "The White Man's Burden" and critic of foreign aid, says “a New-Age blend of market incentives and feel-good recognition will not end poverty...
Free India
4 Feb 2008
Our friend and colleague Barun Mitra, head of Delhi’s Liberty Institute, has a great piece in Monday’s LiveMint. Free India’s Land Market contrasts India’s process of industrial liberalization with the heavy regulations that continue to stifle the land market. The Tata Nano shows that India can be a contender on the world market. But, as Barun underlines, this manufacturing marvel will remain the exception unless further economic reforms are undertaken. Barun particularly focuses on India’s archaic land laws where “restrictions such as zoning, land ceiling and land use laws, along with unclear titles and poor land records, grossly undervalue land prices.” In a country where 60% of the population still depends on agriculture these land laws are a barrier to development and economic growth - including agricultural improvement. Reforming land laws would allow the poorest to use their assets to obtain mortgages and credit, to launch themselves into new competitive sectors and to lift themselves out of poverty...
Wealth equals health
18 Feb 2008
A new report from British pressure group Save the Children claims that economic growth does not necessarily translate into a healthier population. The report cites examples such as India, which still suffers high rates of child mortality despite having undergone a prolonged period of economic growth. This report saysnothing new. Reading between the lines, it is a fairly standard call for governments to redistribute wealth and intervene more heavily in the economy, in order to iron out the inequalities which they perceive to perpetuate ill health. However, economic growth certainly does improve health of the individuals who are able to benefit from it, not least because it enables people to afford better sanitation and living conditions, which are the key to reducing most of the disease burden in less developed countries. The point is that not everyone is able to share in economic growth, largely because of counterproductive governance. For example, if the poor do not have property rights, it makes it impossible for them to borrow capital to invest in their own businesses and education and climb up the economic ladder. Meanwhile, the poorest countries erect massive, costly regulatory obstacles to entrepreneurship, meaning that only the politically well-connected and rich can start businesses and create wealth. And so on. Save the Children are right to point out that the poor are still suffering unacceptably poor health as a result of poverty. Their diagnosis is way off the mark, because the redistributory measures they advocate would stifle economic growth and cut off the one mechanism that is vital for improving health. It would be more constructive for Save the Children to talk about empowering the poor instead of clobbering the rich.
Rising food prices, protectionism and the poor
By Caroline Boin, Alec van Gelder20 Mar 2008
Rising food prices have caused street protests from Mexico to India to Senegal. But this could be a blessing in disguise if it makes governments eliminate the trade barriers that push prices higher: the poorest countries will benefit most from dropping their own tariffs.
Nobel economics laureate Gary Becker estimates that a 30% rise in food prices over five years would cause living standards to fall by 3% in rich countries and by more than 20% in poor countries.
A few countries have already temporarily eased tariffs on agricultural imports to soften the blow for consumers — even the European Union. Thailand is considering a cut of 50% for maize, soybeans and other animal feed. These tariff reductions will offset price increases not just by lowering prices but by increasing supply. Increased trade in agricultural goods (not just food) could even help avert famines where produce is subject to government control, such as in North Korea, Ethiopia and Kenya.
But many countries resist free trade in food, domestically or with neighbours.
In Africa, 200-million people are underfed, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. They have borne the brunt of counterproductive state management of agriculture that has damaged farmers and economies.
For years, governments in Africa forced farmers to surrender their crops to state-run marketing boards at below market rates. Some of these corrupt and inefficient institutions have been weakened or abolished but many other restrictions on agriculture remain, including tariffs on produce and on inputs such as fertiliser and machinery — and even tariffs on exports.
Many development analysts are obsessed with subsidies to farmers in rich countries, now extended to biofuels, and the damage it inflicts on the world’s poor. But it is the world’s poorest countries that impose the highest barriers against trade with each other: agricultural exports between sub-Saharan countries face an average tariff of 33,6%, the highest of any region on Earth.
A whopping 70% of the world’s trade barriers are imposed by governments in poor countries on people in other poor countries. Alhaji Ahmed Abdulkadir, a presidential adviser in Nigeria, has said: “I can assure you that my pen is always ready to ban more items as long as they are available in Nigeria.” These would be “either banned completely and where we have doubts, we will impose high tariffs”. Nigeria’s import bans have included staples such as wheat, rice, maize and vegetable oil, making Nigerians pay sky high prices.
The World Bank estimates that global free trade in all goods would add $287bn to world income each year, half of that going to poor countries. Sixty-three percent of that immediate gain would come from freeing agricultural trade alone. In African countries, nearly all of that 63% would come from removing their own import tariffs and quotas, which artificially restrict access to other markets, including their neighbours’.
High food prices are now a clear and immediate reason to cut tariffs, but that does not mean it will happen. For decades, protectionism has been imposed against the interests of local consumers because of an unholy coalition of Western activists and local vested interests.
Under the slogan “Make Trade Fair”, groups such as Oxfam and Christian Aid claim that protecting local industries and agriculture with tariffs will allow them to grow and become competitive — with local consumers, especially the poorest, suffering higher prices.
But decades of protectionism have done little for sub-Saharan Africa. It is no surprise that crop yields — like income and life expectancy — have steadily decreased across much of Africa since the 1980s.
The technologies that could turn their fortunes around, such as fertiliser, irrigation and genetically modified crops, remain largely out of reach. Worse — and contrary to trends in Asia and Latin America — fertiliser use has actually fallen in many African countries in the past two decades. Whereas an average of 107kg of fertiliser is used per hectare in the developing world as a whole, African countries use only eight. The consequence has been disastrous: 70% of the continent’s work force is still in agriculture, mainly subsistence farming, contributing only about 25% of gross domestic product .
Demand and prices for food are rising, so freeing trade would be the best remedy for the world’s poor, cutting prices at a stroke and boosting production.
High food prices are putting pressure on protectionist governments to free their trade or face angry mobs. The choice is obvious, lest a crisis turn into a tragedy.
Van Gelder is network director at International Policy Network (IPN), a development think-tank in London. Boin runs IPN’s environment programme.
Republishing This Article
We encourage republication of this article. No prior consent is required for such republication on condition that: the article is published in full, without alteration, with the author's name, including any first-publication credit given at the end of the article. If no first-publication credit is given, we encourage acknowledgement of CriticalOpinion.org as the source. If the article is republished on a website, please link to this page.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in the article are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by CriticalOpinion.org or International Policy Network.
