A Conservative Approach to Extreme Poverty
By Nathan Nelson Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
If you watch American Idol like I do, you probably saw last night's special telethonesque episode, "Idol Gives Back." It featured some touching stories and a look at some appalling conditions in the developing world, as well as looking at poverty here in America, and it raised more than $30 million for global charities. Not bad. In fact, I think it's good that the show that inarguably has hegemonic supremacy over our popular culture is encouraging volunteerism and almsgiving. We need to see more of that. I was also glad to see that American Idol refrained from inextricably connecting their charity drive to the so-called "social justice" movement, which is actually only liberalism in one of its many guises.
Read on...
That said, it seems to me that something besides charity is required. It's time for the rest of the world to do something about the developing world; there's absolutely no reason why people in Africa and parts of Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East should have to live in the kind of conditions they live in. These days, the One Campaign is proposed almost universally as the solution to extreme poverty in the developing world. The goals of the One Campaign include so-called "fair trade," debt relief and forgiveness, "fighting corruption" (although there has been little of this), and "directing additional resources for basic needs" (read: redistribution of wealth). In other words, the almost universally proposed solution to extreme poverty in the developing world is socialism. Maybe we should ask the nations of the former Soviet Union or European nations like France how well socialism works when it comes to alleviating poverty.
It's high time for conservatives to propose a comprehensive plan for fighting extreme poverty in the developing world. I already have a few suggestions, and I would welcome more.
1. Free trade, not protectionism in the guise of "fair trade," is the path to prosperity for the developing world. While liberals often decry the horrors of free trade, the fact is that free trade has brought new prosperity to many developing nations. Let's take the Kingdom of Jordan as an example. Since signing a free trade agreement with us in 2000, Jordanian exports to the United States have skyrocketed: from $6.9 million worth of goods in 1997 to $1.1 billion in 2005. New business opportunities are opening up all the time, GDP is up, and unemployment is dropping. Liberal protectionism would only put an end to this in Jordan and in other countries. There is also another benefit to free trade: not only does it open developing nations to Western commerce, but it also opens developing nations to Western values like freedom and tolerance, the roots of democracy, governmental stability, and prosperity. Conservatives must insist on an aggressive policy of free trade with developing nations, for their benefit as well as our own.
2. Redistribution of wealth to corrupt governments who are spending irresponsibly must cease. It has often been said that the most serious problem in the developing world is not economic in nature, but governmental. Corrupt governments are irresponsibly spending Western aid, so that Western aid often ends up benefiting only the leaders and the elite of developing nations and not the people. This must end. The West must set strict preconditions on all aid that must be met by the governments of developing nations, and failure to meet these conditions should mean an end to aid. If this sounds like a lack of compassion, it shouldn't. There is nothing compassionate about continuing to line the pockets of corrupt governmental leaders, often dictators, while their people starve or die of preventable and/or curable illnesses. By continuing to give corrupt governments virtually unfettered aid, we are financially supporting the oppression of developing peoples. Conservatives must start articulating this message.
3. We must take a more conservative approach to debt relief and forgiveness. The most frequently sought solution to extreme poverty in the developing world has been debt relief and forgiveness. Liberals continue to seek debt relief despite the fact that debts have been relieved or forgiven again and again, and yet developing nations continue to accumulate more debt while extreme poverty continues within their borders. We must begin to take a more conservative approach to developing world debt. Debt should be relieved much less frequently than it is today, and debt should almost never be completely forgiven. Why? It's not because we're a bunch of conservative ogres. It's because developing world debt gives the governments of developing nations incentive to seek economic prosperity: they will seek it because they will need it to pay back their debts. Current liberal policies of debt relief and forgiveness have only encouraged economic and fiscal irresponsibility in the developing world.
4. The international community must get tough with corrupt developing world governments. For a variety of reasons, the international community has given corrupt developing world governments a free pass for decades. We have watched as these governments have perpetrated horrendous crimes against their people, including genocide in Rwanda and Sudan. The United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations have watched passively as millions have died senselessly, and they have left the African Union to fend for itself in the face of obstacles that are truly insurmountable for the AU. It's time for the international community to get serious about corrupt and immoral governments in the developing world. Aggressive diplomatic efforts must be made to secure governmental reform, and governments that would sponsor or condone crimes against humanity, especially genocide, must be stopped by any means necessary.
5. We must not be afraid to give more aid to private charity and less aid to governments and governmental organizations. The average person knows that government doesn't spend money well. If this is true domestically, doesn't it follow that it's even more true internationally? Governments often can't even get domestic spending right because they don't truly know the situation on the ground. If governments don't know what's going on within their own borders and how to solve problems there, how can they possibly know what's going on in nations that are thousands of miles away? Private charities, especially religious ones, have taken the time to understand the situation on the ground in the developing world. They know how money is best spent to help the people who so badly need our help. We need an international faith-based initiative for the developing world so that charities which actually care about the people there and know their circumstances can spend aid money wisely and for the benefit of needy people.
Some may question whether we should really get so serious about the developing world. Most conservatives are also international relations realists, which means that they rightly put national interest and practical global solutions above the liberal so-called "common good," which often ends up being anything but common or good. This is a valid question to ask. I would respond by saying that it is in our national interest to take an aggressive approach to ending extreme poverty in the developing world. I would go a step further by saying that extreme poverty in the developing world is an imminent threat to our national security and to the security of the world.
The fact is that extreme poverty breeds the kind of national security risks we've been trying to limit and prevent since September 11, 2001. Fed up with international complacence and blaming their problems on the West (sometimes justifiably), it doesn't take much of a leap to understand that developing peoples could be influenced by radical Islam or other terrorist ideologies. Moreover, extreme poverty and governmental corruption in the developing world exist in a symbiotic relationship with one another. Governmental corruption is one of the root causes of extreme poverty, but extreme poverty also prevents people from getting involved in governmental reform and thus perpetuates governmental corruption. How can you even think about the corruption and immorality of your government when you can't even feed your kids? As long as extreme poverty continues in the developing world, so will corrupt governments and rogue states.
As long as weapons of mass destruction exist in the world - and they always will - such states will represent an imminent threat to the United States, our allies, and the entire international community. We have already seen with North Korea that extreme poverty does not necessarily prevent the development of weapons of mass destruction: Pyongyang can't and won't feed its people, but it can and will develop nuclear weaponry. It is in our national interest to end extreme poverty in the developing world precisely because prosperity and democracy also exist in a symbiotic relationship. Democracy leads inevitably to prosperity because peoples tend not to vote against their own economic interests, and prosperity leads to democratic reform because it enables people to have the time, energy, and financial stability to be involved in government. The spread of democracy and prosperity in the developing world will directly benefit the United States, and that's why conservatives can and should begin proposing a conservative approach to fighting extreme poverty to replace the failed policies of international liberalism.
food crops. Europe has effectively stopped Africa from using GE feed grains which are easier to grow and resistant to weather and pests.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
A corollary to your suggestion is an end to foreign aid in the form of free food except for very short-term and very limited responses to famine.
First off when we provide aid in the form of food it is just a back door farm subsidy to our farmers and causes all of the evils described in your post.
Secondly, when we provide food aid it puts our free food in direct competition with local farmers who obviously have a tough time turning a profit while trying to compete with a product that is being provided for free. The result is that their local agriculture industry is wiped out and the farmers flee the farms for their cities, or worse, for our cities as either refugees or illegal immigrants.
Because agriculture is often the ONLY viable industry in these third world economies, when we wipe it out with free food we essentially guarantee that our aid results in a failed economy and ultimately a failed state. Once wrecked, agriculture is extremely hard to re-establish because there is nothing particularly attractive about the life of a third world farmer and when they leave the farm they don't go back.
Instead of food aid we should be sending tractors and farmers to train the locals. Teach them to catch the fish neh?
"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"-Socrates(the real one ;)
the first thing we should send are sniper teams to eliminate the so-called political leadership. See Mugabe for starters.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Not to toot my own religion's horn or anything, but Catholic Relief Services engages in just this kind of "teach a man to fish" charity. It's proven very effective.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
Charities out there no question.(not catholic)
"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"-Socrates(the real one ;)
Because this person had just advocated sending one of our biggest businesses and largest exporters into shock. Lets praise him for destroy thousands upon thousands of jobs, increasing the average food price for everyone American, and creating thousands of new voters for Democrats. Because farmers still vote Republican in large number.
Horray!!!
biggest businesses and largest exporters into shock
If it's a good idea for agribusiness, then it should be a great idea for light manufacturers, automobile makers, the tech industry, you name it. There's a lot of businesses that could be made bigger at taxpayer expense.
destroy thousands upon thousands of jobs
And then maybe the illegal aliens that perform those jobs without benefits for minimum wage or less will go home, easing the burden on our social services. Sounds like win-win to me.
increasing the average food price for everyone American
So you are saying the point of punitive tariffs on agricultural goods is actually to lower prices? Is that also the point of agricultural price supports? Is that the point of subsidizing outlets for agribusiness products to the point where we run into shortages and the price of the product goes through the roof (like corn did this year)?
Besides, shouldn't the people buying and consuming the goods pay the price? There's a lot of things that could be made cheaper in the short run by government subsidy.
creating thousands of new voters for Democrats
Well, as you sort of pointed out, many of the illegal aliens who are performing these tasks won't have jobs any more and won't have much choice but to go home. Seems like that means fewer Democrat voter to me.
Because farmers still vote Republican in large number.
There aren't a large number of farmers out there to vote for anybody. The average farm made 100 grand in profit last year. That's on paper based on tax filings, so you can bet the real number is even higher. The days of ma and pa and 50 head of cattle have been over for decades now, largely as a result of subsidized agribusiness.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Maybe it is me growing up in Indiana and knowing about 10 different families that farm as a business so I really don't believe you understand how important U.S. farming is.
1) You say that their aren't a large number of farmers out there anymore. Well there is 960,000 people that would disagree with you. In most midwest states that is a nice chunk of population.
2) I never said anything about illegal immigration in farmer. I am talking purely about the American Farmer. So don't try to turn this isn't an illegal immigration debate.
3) Like all agricultural products there is ups and downs. Beef prices have risen lately, but they will fall again.
4) The U.S. farmers produce about $100 billion worth of crops and about $100 billion worth of livestock each year. That is a lot of money I would think.
5) Unlike businesses in manufacturing and other areas farming does not need to focus on quality as much as quanity. In economics, if you ever studied it, you would learn that the reason why Japanese companies due so well is that there is huge competition in the domestic market, so the companies that do exist do extremely well on the world market. The reason why is that they are forced to stay ahead in quality and customer service. Subsidies will not solve that problem in the auto industry nor in many other industries. The idea that subsidies solve every problem is foolish.
6) Finally I am glad you loaded your comment with facts. Even though fewer than 1 in 4 of the farms in this country produce gross revenues in excess of $50,000. Food is most affording, worldwide, in the United States because we
A) Do subsidies our business
B) The "tariffs" you talk about are no longer a problem in most areas. Remember the thing called CAFTA that passed that Hispanics didn't want because it would destroy farms.
Next Agricultural-related businesses provide 13% of the U.S. GDP. 13% isn't exactly small is it?
Now if you wish to get into a Economics debate over illegal Immigration I will gladly do it.
not a single compelling reason to continue farm subsidies. If farm subsidies ended the market would adjust to the new reality. The least productive and worst managed farms would go out of business without the artificial market distortions caused by subsidies. The lessor supply would cause prices to rise to a level where the remaining farmers could stay in business. Prices for consumers would probably be higher but this would be offset by lower taxes. The land that was freed up by the worst farmers going out of business probably would not remain vacant for long. Better farmers would figure out how to use it productively probably with alternative crops demanded by the market and they would create jobs in the process. All and all a few jobs might be lost but probably not many. There would be many benefits from weaning farmers off of big government subsidies (which is just a form of socialism) such as those discussed in the posts above. Large parts of our agricultural industry receive minimal or no subsidies and they manage to get by just fine. I come from a Wyoming ranching family and we never got much in the way of government handouts. Corn farmers could learn to do the same.
Doesn't most of the "extreme poverty" occur under corrupt regimes? In order to solve that issue one would need to remove/replace the corrupt dictatorships. The problem here is that the UN is either complacent or absolutely useless in dealing with real tragedies. The only way to deal with the corrupt dictatorships is with military force. Sanctions won't work because the ones in power will still be better off then anyone else subject to them. All the dictator is going to do is hold out long enough and keep pointing that sanctions are hurting the poor women and children. Eventually the "civilized world" will cave.
Who is going to remove them and then ensure that enough time is given for the general population too not only learn how to govern themselves but how to get along with their fellow countrymen? The "West" no longer has the stomach for it and the rest don't really care.
Until we solve how to realistically deal with corrupt regimes, the world poverty issue can not be solved. No amount of money will help because in the long run that only enables the dictator.
Dwander - First, I would direct you to my fourth suggestion in which I discuss exactly what you've mentioned. I concluded by saying that "governments that would sponsor or condone crimes against humanity, especially genocide, must be stopped by any means necessary."
With that said, the West absolutely does not have the resources to engage in direct military operations wherever there is corrupt government. We need to think about this intelligently and not assume that every problem finds its solution at the barrel end of a gun (although some certainly do). Corrupt governments have reformed in the past, and those that have refused to reform have been brought to their knees and replaced without anyone firing a shot. The Soviet Union is no more and many of the former Soviet nations are developing at a rapid pace with stable, democratic governments - and yet the American military and the Soviet military never engaged one another. Military solutions may be required in some cases, but we first need to exhaust all of our other diplomatic resources. Sanctions are not our only resources, by the way - we can also support democratic reformers and dissidents seeking regime change without our military's direct involvement.
Whatever one may think about this issue, the only option that isn't really an option is continuing to do nothing. The conditions in the developing world and our indifference to them are unfathomably immoral. Anyone who is truly religious or who really believes in strong moral values should be concerned about the developing world and committed to finding solutions.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
Nate,
I understand that we agree on what should be done with the really corrupt regimes. But that doesn't answer the how. If the west or UN actually went after one full force and stuck it out to the end do you think other corrupt regimes would fold?
I understand and agree that not every situation needs to be solved by the gun. But, I don't believe giving dictators more money, food, and medicine will work either.
I don't think what happened with the USSR is comparable. They were in direct competition with the U.S. President Regan's policies spent them into bankruptcy. When their economy tanked, they folded. The corrupt regimes already have economies in the tank so how are more sanctions going to help?
I'm all for giving aid after some disaster. Normally those countries don't have some despot running the show and the aid helps them get back on their feet.
I agree with a lot of what you wrote. What I believe is that we can't help the vast majority of the extremely poor without first changing the form of government they live under. How do we peacefully remove a despot? Billions of dollars have been given to the Palestinians. How has that helped their poor? How many billions of dollars and pounds of food and medicine do you want to give to African countries? How has that helped their poor? Have things really improved for them or does it just remain the same? Are they worth saving? Heck yes! But the only way I can come up with to help them in the long run is to help them move to some other place.
If you send food, medicine, farm equipment or what ever who is going to guard it and ensure the dictator doesn’t take it for his own? How are you truly going to insure that the people who need it actually get it and keep it? What keeps the local government from forcibly redistributing the new resources to their own?
I’m all for helping others who come upon bad times but I would like to do it in such a way that it helps much longer then one or two days.
The unfortunate fact is that *any* charity strengthens the bad governments, even if those governments are not directly receiving the aid.
We've seen this very recently in the Palestinian Territories, where Hamas was under a lot of internal pressure after they were cut off from Western aid. They were unable to make government payrolls. People were angry and rebellion was brewing. Once the Europeans started paying those salaries directly (which they thought was a great idea, since it bypassed Hamas), Hamas ended up in a much better situation. The payments relieved most of the pressure on the government, they were still able to blame any of their problems on the international community, and they undoubtedly got credit for improving the situation when they had nothing to do with it.
Free trade is the only way to accomplish anything lasting. Aid is often counterproductive and just creates more dependency.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I disagree with you in regard to aid. Actually, I may agree with you that certain types of aid should be limited or perhaps completely prohibited. For example, we need not be paying the salaries of workers who are employed by corrupt governments. You're absolutely right that such "aid" only sustains such governments. But that's not the kind of "aid" I'm referring to - I'm referring to basic aid like food (although above concerns about too much food aid are noted), medicine, etc.
One could make the argument that providing food, medicine, and the like will allow people to be complacent in regard to their governments' corruption. But one could also make the argument - and I'm making it - that it would be immoral for the West to let children die of starvation and preventable/treatable illnesses when it is within our power to prevent such deaths on a much wider scale than we currently are. Have you ever considered that providing aid directly to the people - not to their governments - may, instead of making them complacent toward their governments, make them more friendly toward the West and more anxious to work toward democratic reform? If they see the good that the West does, don't you think it's possible that they will want a government that is more like us and less like their current regimes?
I'm sorry, but I just don't see how it's moral to sit back and do nothing. The liberal approach to this problem has failed and failed again, but the conservative approach can't be to simply turn and walk away. We've got to do something.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
the end of Farm subsidies. What could be more devastating to a developing nation that relies heavily on their agriculture then for industrialized nations subsidizing their farmers? This creates an artificially low price for those commodities. Any free trade should also include provisions for the removal of behind the scenes market influences, such as subsidies.
"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"-Socrates(the real one ;)