
Ending Famine, Simply by Ignoring the Experts - theoneill
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/world/africa/02malawi.html?ex=1354251600&en=9e043dc595352136&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
======
ivankirigin
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
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....

------
Tichy
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
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).

