16 von 16 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
E. N. Anderson
- Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format: Gebundene Ausgabe
On the whole, this is a good book. It reads well, does not try to cover too much, and uses common sense instead of economic doublespeak or theories pushed beyond their limit. Collier has a valuable mix of ethics and economics: he sees the need to help people, first of all, and, second, to be fair about it; and that means that we see ourselves as custodians of resources for the future.
He is especially good on macroeconomics and national policy, and on the problems of corruption--the "plunder" side of the equation. The middle part of the book, where he dissects this in detail, is by far the best.
He has many good things to say about one of my research areas, fisheries, where we are depleting a resource that should be sustainable, and therefore depriving future generations through sheer irresponsibility. Unfortunately, his cure is to leave fishery regulation to the United Nations and the individual nations that hold territorial waters. The United Nations does not even stop genocide; they saw fit to elect China and Sudan to the Human Rights Commission and then re-elect them. The chances that fish will get better care are somewhat remote.
Collier defends GM crops, nuclear energy generation, and some other things that will raise hackles; I agree with him and the facts are pretty much there, but one must worry about the future with the GM crops, since they are poorly regulated so far.
Collier leaves out two key points that he absolutely needs, to make his case. One is population growth. The delusion that population will naturally stop growing around 2050--a false claim--may have deluded him. In fact, world population is growing far too fast. This could be stopped without any draconian measures, simply by giving girls some education--every year in primary school reduces ultimate birth numbers--and by providing comprehensive health care including family planning options. That done, people are sensible enough to make the right decisions.
Next comes the worldwide decline in good farmland. Urbanization, including building of roads and airports, is a lot of the problem. Erosion and desertification is the rest of it. At current rates of urbanization, my home state of California will lose its last farm around 2050, and China will lose its last one within a century or so. China is moving its agriculture to Brazil, Sudan, and so on--what will the Brazilians and Sudanese eat in the end?
In one place, Collier is wrong, and is so wrong that I find it mystifying: he argues for large-scale agribusiness as opposed to small farms. He holds up the model of the impoverished, capital-less African smallholding or the "romantic" organic hobby farm as the only alternatives! What happened to normal small-to-medium-sized commercial agriculture? There are thousands of studies, over 300 years, using literally tens of millions of data points, that show these are better than large-scale absentee-landlord agribusiness of the Brazil/California style. One can go all the way back to Arthur Young in the 1770s, already proving it. Collier even talked to Hans Binswanger, whom he admits is "the leading international expert on African agriculture" (and, one may add, on some other ag issues), and Binswanger tried to set him straight; but Collier disagrees. One need only read Binswanger's work--or Robert Netting's, or any of a thousand other authors--to see that reasonably-capitalized, intensive, family farming or comparable middle-scale intensive farming is what works. Agribusiness ruins the land and has appalling social consequences; we see a lot of this in California, where, most recently, agribusiness ruined the vast and fertile Tulare Basin by allowing salinization, and now a family farmer is reclaiming a chunk of it through sheer hard work.
Or take my own Mexican research: Maya Indian farmers on tiny plots succeed where every agribusiness effort has failed, in the harsh habitat of the Yucatan peninsula. Hard work and skill will generally beat absentee landlordship and careless use of heavy-duty capital, especially in an environment really needed that skill.
4 von 4 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
- Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format: Gebundene Ausgabe
Vine Kundenrezension eines kostenfreien Produkts
Was ist das?
The Bottom Billion was explicitly about explaining the problems of Africa. It was Collier's description of the problem. In that analysis, many of the challenges were constants. A country without a port is forever consigned to some economic vulnerability. Bad neighbors are also a problem. Others are transitory. A corrupt government enables poverty. Abundant non-renewable natural resources (the "resource curse") is another problem. The last issue is at the heart of most of this book. In the global economy, natural resources (oil, coltan, copper, diamonds, et al) are sought after by China and the West. That is where the Bottom Billion finished.
This is his prescription for the problem. Collier is much more pragmatic. He's asking, 'if Africa is poor but it does have natural resources, then how should the extraction of those resources be engineered to actually help people out of poverty?" Plunder is when bad leaders put their own greed in front of the needs of their nations, often with the facilitation of a world power or a global corporation. Too frequently, abundant resources mix with a lack of transparency in institutions, no rule of law, a poor and poorly educated population. It might be coincidental, or it might be that one breeds the other. No difference. It is the problem that Africa faces today.
Here is how it goes: a relatively undeveloped but somewhat orderly third world country wakes up to the news that (diamonds, oil, copper, uranium...) a vast mine of resources is located inside it borders. Global corporations move into town. They would like to explore, perhaps to find more reserves. Those corporations are not alone - they are soon side by side with the ministries of several nations. They want the goods, and they are willing to pay. The country has a government, albeit it unacquainted with geology or with international law. A deal is struck. The money goes into an account. No one sees the dollars in the country, though. It is siphoned off through "facilitation payments" or by ouright theft. The people are worse off than before, because demand for currency drives up the export price of the other economic products of the country. This is Dutch Disease.
There are better ways for a resource-blessed country to proceed. The model is Norway, where oil wealth was invested into safe US Treasuries. The gradual enrichment of the country took time, but now Norway has excellent roads, clean water, and good schools. That investment has in turn fostered an educated labor force that creates its own value. The dark path is that of Zaire or Equitorial Guinea - where resources have wrecked civil society. Collier thinks there ought to be a balance. Norway's path is generally preferable, although Collier takes exception to the idea of putting off spending. He feels like you cannot give everything to future generations at the expense of today.
The first interesting thing that Collier has to say is that Africa is not actually as well endowed with resources as if often though. With a few of his graduate students, he attempted to monetize known resource assets. The answer was intriguing: across 3/4s of the world, there were about 192,000 pounds per acre in resources. In Africa, there was just 23,000. He doubts that the land is so barren, but only that the continent' lack of development has meant that it is still largely unexplored. Nonetheless, most of those countries are dependent upon commodity exports. They have fewer resources on a relative level, but they have even fewer non-resource assets.
The second interesting thing: he's not so black-and-white about Chinese expansion into the resource game. He likes two things. For one, the Chinese will provide the funds for a country to get its own survey of its geology. That means that these countries are negotiating with more certainty. Second, the Chinese pay in a way that prevents plunder. Whereas the West likes to offer dollars through transparent agreements, the Chinese prefer to build infrastructure but not to provide any details about their deals. There is value to that approach. It guarantees that those oil or copper dollars won't go into the Swiss accounts of the Prime Minister.
A third interesting thing: Collier believes that "pastoralism," his term for the rose-colored view of village life and local agriculture, is a short-sighted and potentially harmful concept. Prince Charles has apparently developed a working village community in England, with artisan trade workers and small farming. Development organizations have lately taken to supporting micro-finance projects and small scale farming. The problem with that, he says, is that we already have about one billion people that cannot eat. Population is only going to expand. Moreover, with climate change it is likely that there will be fewer places that are suitable for farming. The world is going to have more starving people, unless we accept large scale agronomy and the opportunities afforded by fertilizers and GMO crops. I think he understands why people love going to their farmer's market: the food just tastes better. And it does, but there is a cost. While all of those farmer's markets probably don't take many acres away from Cargill or ADM, the idea is the problem. If the World Food Programme decides that it is going to fund projects that support small peasant plots, then Africa will never be able to feed its mega-cities.
I imagined that this would be a book about the destruction of our natural environment. It was the title, "Plundered Planet," as well as its subhead about nature and prosperity, that made me think Collier would be skip to a discussion about stewardship of nature. Ah, but that is what this book is not about. Collier even singles out the idea of "stewardship" as misguided. How can we put the interest of nature first if it means consigning more nations to poverty, and more people to lives without sanitation, education, and adequate food? The problem is that many environmental aims are met by holding development in place. He wants clean forests, stocks of fish, and fresh air. He also wants economic growth. This book is about satisfying both of those aims. The success or failure will be witnessed in Africa, where people are already poor but will also be among the most vulnerable to climate change.
I enjoyed this book because it is so thorough, and also because I feel like I have been listening to someone who is not afraid to contradict a popular opinion. These are the thoughts of someone that has spent his life thinking about how we can actually make a difference for the Wretched of the Earth. Although it is written by a world-class academic, it is still written in a way that it can be understood by the average reader.