Overpopulation is holding back development

gbh

I read somewhere, I can't remember where, that Uganda now has 30 million people, had 10 million in 1970 and will have 130 million by 2050. The average birth rate is 7.1 children per woman.

This would mean that given a 400% increase in population in the next 43 years, Uganda would need GDP growth rates of on average 10% per year to sustain the current standard of living, which I doubt will happen.

At a time when the reasonably influential Catholic Church and US Republicans forbids family planning in Africa, surely the CC and Republicans are contributing to the further impovrishment of the people of Uganda as one example. Not alone this but many NGOs and UN programmes are funded by the US government and Catholic Church with the ideal of preventing proper familiy planning. Isn't it time the CC held up its hands and admit that its policies on family planning in the developing world actually encourage people further and further into poverty?

Akrasia

gbh wrote:

I read somewhere, I can't remember where, that Uganda now has 30 million people, had 10 million in 1970 and will have 130 million by 2050. The average birth rate is 7.1 children per woman.

This would mean that given a 400% increase in population in the next 43 years, Uganda would need GDP growth rates of on average 10% per year to sustain the current standard of living, which I doubt will happen.

At a time when the reasonably influential Catholic Church and US Republicans forbids family planning in Africa, surely the CC and Republicans are contributing to the further impovrishment of the people of Uganda as one example. Not alone this but many NGOs and UN programmes are funded by the US government and Catholic Church with the ideal of preventing proper familiy planning. Isn't it time the CC held up its hands and admit that its policies on family planning in the developing world actually encourage people further and further into poverty?

Yep.

And education for all. (well, quality education, not religious based education that just perpetuates the patriarchal attitude that suppresses women)

If we spent a tiny fraction of the money we spend on tools to blow each other up on education instead, the global poverty situation might actually start to improve instead of continuing to worsen.

gbh

I should have said that overpopulation also can create conditions for war such as pressure on land and resources. It can also lead to devastation of the environment, cutting down of forests for agriculture etc which in turn will exacerbate global warming. So it is as big a problem as cutting back CO2 emissions and I dont think NGOs take the problem seriously enough. So family planning is a must for development.

How many of those children make it to age of 5? 10? 20?

Using some stats from the good folks at the CIA ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html ) Uganda appears to have a lower population density than many European countries.

Economic Development or a lack thereof is the problem in Africa, not overpopulation.

cavedave

Overpopulation is quite and odd question there are all sorts of assumptions that people make that are probably wrong. One assumption is that of a Malthusian world of people fighting for finite resources. Another is not understanding the connection between rural living and power usage and the number of children people have. In an urban environment kids are a drain in a rural one they are quite useful. As people move from rural to urban living they do end up having less children. Also there is a direct correlation between an increase in the number of watts people consume and a reduction in the number of children they have.

I am not saying you are wrong about a need for family planning in the third world just that there are other issues involved

There is no population problem

gbh

cavedave wrote:

Overpopulation is quite and odd question there are all sorts of assumptions that people make that are probably wrong. One assumption is that of a Malthusian world of people fighting for finite resources. Another is not understanding the connection between rural living and power usage and the number of children people have. In an urban environment kids are a drain in a rural one they are quite useful. As people move from rural to urban living they do end up having less children. Also there is a direct correlation between an increase in the number of watts people consume and a reduction in the number of children they have.

I am not saying you are wrong about a need for family planning in the third world just that there are other issues involved

There is no population problem

I agree that people have made mistakes in the past about this issue. Chiefly Europe was able to disprove Malthouse because of its rich soil and also the industrial and agricultural revolutions which improved crop yields from the same land. European population growth has stagnated and in some cases is in decline.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote:

How many of those children make it to age of 5? 10? 20?

Using some stats from the good folks at the CIA ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html ) Uganda appears to have a lower population density than many European countries.

Economic Development or a lack thereof is the problem in Africa, not overpopulation.

Overpopulation is a huge problem. It's not all about population density per square mile, it's about the population density that can be supported by the available resources and economic conditions.

Sure, Uganda could probably physically accommodate the same population density as the netherlands, but it might require using 99% of their land surface for economic activity and that would be environmentally devastating, for them, and for us.

In Ireland we had the same overpopulation problem, and it took a a famine followed by more than a century of mass emigration and a widescale rejection of the doctrines of the Catholic religion for us to escape the economic devastation such overpopulation brought.

liberty 2007

The size of a population is directly related to availability of food. There's also a close connection with medical care. But the that food supply is also directly connected to our consumption of energy (oil) When the oil peek kicks in, we may see a very different population shift.

mike65

In Ireland we had the same overpopulation problem, and it took a a famine followed by more than a century of mass emigration and a widescale rejection of the doctrines of the Catholic religion for us to escape the economic devastation such overpopulation brought.

Controversial! I don't know if one can make the claim either, Irelands poverty was in part down to the impact of being under British rule and chronic short-sighted policies in the post independence era. The island of Ireland is easily able to sustain 8 million if the place were run fairly and competently and that would have been true in 1850 and 1950 as well.

Mike.

InFront

US Republicans forbids family planning in Africa

gbh wrote:

family planning is a must for development.

I realize that these two statements are not exactly directly related, but it should be pointed out that it's abortion funding that the US block, not actually an international ban on abortion.

I don't respect many things that Republicans say or do or think, but surely someone who wants abortions to be more available must believe that the state doesn't have a place in interfering in family planning, and that's got to include paying for women's abortions, which also sends rather a bad message and could have all sorts of disturbing meanings.

(And I appreciate you didn't specifically mention abortion, I'm just presuming it's what you're partially referring to)

The Saint

I'd presume he's referring to the US funding family planning programmes that engourage abstainance rather than contraception. I really don't think he was referring to abortion.

As for the Malthusian view; it is also due to technological developments that allow more to be produced with the same physical resourses. These would include ploughs, fertiliser, herbicides, etc that allow greater productivity per labour input and availabe resources. The Malthusian view has been around for three hundred years and has again and again been discreditied. The main reasons for famine are political, be they war or colonialism. Before Indian independence there were many famines that wiped out million of people. This would have been an exmple for proponents of the Malthusian view. After independence there have been famines but no mass starvations. Why? Because India is now a democracy and therefore if a government allows people to starve they will no longer be in power come the next election.

Also people in the third world have children for reasons other than availibility of contraception and education. Children have an economic function in families in the third world. They work on farms to produce subsistace food for their families or work in paid labour to subsidise the family income. They can take care of old or infirm relatives. Also, having many children acts as an insurance policy against one or more of them dying as is the case in countries with high infant mortality rates. Birth rates tend to decline when a society becomes more develloped not to aid development.

Victor

gbh wrote:

I read somewhere, I can't remember where, that Uganda now has 30 million people, had 10 million in 1970 and will have 130 million by 2050. The average birth rate is 7.1 children per woman.

This would mean that given a 400% increase in population in the next 43 years, Uganda would need GDP growth rates of on average 10% per year to sustain the current standard of living, which I doubt will happen.

Ah! Wonderful hocus pocus maths.

3.4% GDP growth compunded over 43 years would result in the economy being 407% its current size, thereby maintaining the current standard of living. Actual GDP growth is well in excess of that.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ug.html
Population growth rate: 3.572% (2007 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: 5.3% (2006 est.)

Hopefully, the recent reduction in violence and efforts to put the economy on the right track will increase that further. The increase in population should feed growth. If the dependency rate drops, it can become an African Tiger.

williambonney

gbh wrote:

I read somewhere, I can't remember where, that Uganda now has 30 million people, had 10 million in 1970 and will have 130 million by 2050. The average birth rate is 7.1 children per woman.

This would mean that given a 400% increase in population in the next 43 years, Uganda would need GDP growth rates of on average 10% per year to sustain the current standard of living, which I doubt will happen.

At a time when the reasonably influential Catholic Church and US Republicans forbids family planning in Africa, surely the CC and Republicans are contributing to the further impovrishment of the people of Uganda as one example. Not alone this but many NGOs and UN programmes are funded by the US government and Catholic Church with the ideal of preventing proper familiy planning. Isn't it time the CC held up its hands and admit that its policies on family planning in the developing world actually encourage people further and further into poverty?

30 million in Uganda? Fine, so long as they stay in Uganda and don’t try an come to Ireland.

The Saint

williambonney wrote:

30 million in Uganda? Fine, so long as they stay in Uganda and don’t try an come to Ireland.

In fairness, why did you bother? It has nothing got to do with the thread. If you want to start a thread about all the blacks taking our jobs and women be my guest but please don't do it here in a thread that is debating something a bit more serious.

williambonney

The Saint wrote:

In fairness, why did you bother? It has nothing got to do with the thread. If you want to start a thread about all the blacks taking our jobs and women be my guest but please don't do it here in a thread that is debating something a bit more serious.

The point I was making was the VAST MAJORITY of people in Ireland could not give a **** whether there are 30 million or 300 million people in Uganda.

The Saint

williambonney wrote:

The point I was making was the VAST MAJORITY of people in Ireland could not give a **** whether there are 30 million or 300 million people in Uganda.

That wasn't the point you were making at all. You were just winging about not wanting African immigrants coming here. The thread isn't about Uganda or any other specific country. It's about development and Uganda was taken as an example to build an arguement. If you don't care about development or have nothing to add to the debate then stay out of this thread instead of posting irrelivant tripe.

williambonney

The Saint wrote:

That wasn't the point you were making at all. You were just winging about not wanting African immigrants coming here. The thread isn't about Uganda or any other specific country. It's about development and Uganda was taken as an example to build an arguement. If you don't care about development or have nothing to add to the debate then stay out of this thread instead of posting irrelivant tripe.

Who the hell do you think you are to tell me what point I am or am not making? You sanctimonious gob****e.

The Saint

williambonney wrote:

The point I was making was the VAST MAJORITY of people in Ireland could not give a **** whether there are 30 million or 300 million people in Uganda.

So how is this statement above have any relation to what you said below? It makes no sense. I'm not sure how someone is supposed to decipher the former statement from the latter.

williambonney wrote:

30 million in Uganda? Fine, so long as they stay in Uganda and don’t try an come to Ireland..

Oh yeah, personal abuse isn't permitted in this forum. Have a nice day.

oscarBravo

williambonney wrote:

Who the hell do you think you are to tell me what point I am or am not making? You sanctimonious gob****e.

Banned. This ban is indefinite; I've seen nothing to convince me that you'll ever make a constructive contribution to this forum.

gbh

Made some slight mistakes in my maths....130 million population predicted by 2050. Population currently 30 million. So an increase of 333% in 43 years. Maybe the article was wrong though and the CIA figures are right. But it does mean an accumalative increase of 333% in 43 years which works out at an average 7.4%/year increase in population.

I dont think Uganda could support this increase in population.

As for family planning I am talking about abortion in certain circumstances or the right to choose. In other circumstances I am talking about the right to choose condoms, whose use the Catholic Church seems to equate with eternal damnation.

gbh

Victor wrote:

Ah! Wonderful hocus pocus maths.

3.4% GDP growth compunded over 43 years would result in the economy being 407% its current size, thereby maintaining the current standard of living. Actual GDP growth is well in excess of that.

Hopefully, the recent reduction in violence and efforts to put the economy on the right track will increase that further. The increase in population should feed growth. If the dependency rate drops, it can become an African Tiger.

Fair point, never thought of that...but it still wont lift the country out of poverty.

I guess in the real world what will happen everywhere not just in this one country taken as an example is that a balance will no longer be kept as in earlier times and people will outstrip resources. This has already happened in terms of sea fishing. It may happen with freshwater fishing. Forests will be cut down for more agricultural land. Prices of commodities will go up. There will be more demand for fossil fuels and less fuels to go around. The pressure gets worse the more the population increases. I think countries like France and the US have achieved a balance. Countries like China and India are now stretching to provide for their poulations. I think the point about population densities is well made.

bonkey

gbh wrote:

Made some slight mistakes in my maths....130 million population predicted by 2050. Population currently 30 million. So an increase of 333% in 43 years. Maybe the article was wrong though and the CIA figures are right. But it does mean an accumalative increase of 333% in 43 years which works out at an average 7.4%/year increase in population.

You've still got some slight mistakes in your math.

333% in 43 years is a shade less than 2.9% sustained population growth. You forgot to allow that population growth is exponential.

Current population growth is 3.57 (estimated) according to a quick google, which - if sustained - would result in a population growth of over 450% in 43 years.

I dont think Uganda could support this increase in population.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/got/vwldps/125.html

gbh

Thanks for that link bonkey...

I do unfortunately think it will lead to economic refugees going to Europe. Now I am not against this but I don't think it is an ideal situation for anyone. The education system in Uganda will be stretched for one as will the health system. The government will struggle imo to find jobs for all these new workers. Ireland would struggle to find jobs for all its people and did so not long ago. But it has managed to attract a lot of US FDI. Uganda would need many times that amount of FDI.

Victor

As regards population density, Uganda currently has half the density of the UK, the difference being, you can probably get 2 to 4 crop harvests per year in Uganda. Is the UK starving (yes I realise they are a net importer of food)?

Your projection 43 years into the future is just that - a projection, no guarantee it will happen.

gbh wrote:

Made some slight mistakes in my maths....130 million population predicted by 2050. Population currently 30 million. So an increase of 333% in 43 years. Maybe the article was wrong though and the CIA figures are right. But it does mean an accumalative increase of 333% in 43 years which works out at an average 7.4%/year increase in population.

I dont think Uganda could support this increase in population.

In all honesty, where are you getting your numbers from? Can you attach your calculations?

DadaKopf

I do unfortunately think it will lead to economic refugees going to Europe.

Migration patterns are driven by underdevelopment (including conflict) and global inequality. If the right decisions were made, and actions taken, which really did lead to development in the majority world, reducing inequality, less migration would actually happen.

Another interesting thing: the migrant and refugee burden is mostly borne by developing countries. Also, migration patterns is overwhelming shlfting towards migration to cities (read: urban slums) within developing countries.

The population burden, realistically, is a problem of underdevelopment and not population growth per se.

gbh

Here's one article I found on it.

http://www.unfpa.org/profile/uganda.cfm?Section=1

Will post the original article when I find it.

gbh

As an aside it seems to me that lesser developed countries seem to have faster population increases.

I think some population increase is probably nessecary for economic development, larger markets for producers, farmers, traders, entrepreneurs, business and sales peoples. But maybe if growth is too rapid it could be a problem.

Pazaz 21

I think that the development in countries such as Uganda is being held back by a lack of basic infastructure rather then overpopulation. People need to have as many children as possible to take care of them and provide for the family because they have no other choice when it comes to gaining employment or providing for their family.

According to the article quoted at the start of this thread the population of Uganda has increased by 20 million in 30 years, but has the basic infastructure of the country developed at all in that time? The problem now in Uganda is the same as it was 30 years ago, but instead of 10 million people starving to death, it's now 30 million, same problem, bigger scale.

The Saint

Good governence and more equitable prade relations would help in development in the third world. The structural adjustment programmes and loan conditionalities imposed by the IMF and World Bank in the 1980's also have a lot to answer for. If rich countries believe in free trade then they should implement it not forcing poor countries to open up their economies while protecting their own.

DadaKopf

What do you mean by "good governance"?

gbh

I agree with you that better trade conditions would help. But honestly that is outside the power (mostly) of the government of Uganda.

Largely the point I am making is that governments like Uganda's need aid from countries like Ireland to cover the costs of healthcare and education of their people. Now if this year you had 1 million people needing clean water and in ten years you have maybe 1.5million needing clean water then Uganda is going to spend all its money on improving infrastruture just to maintain subsistence and little on education which really lifts people out of poverty. So increasing population in countries like Uganda may become a burden on the Irish taxpayer as much as anyone else.

The Saint

DadaKopf wrote:

What do you mean by "good governance"?

Governments that are not corrupt, that don't embezzle the country's cash, that are preferably democratic, that work for the good of the people and not themselves, etc...

The Saint

gbh wrote:

I agree with you that better trade conditions would help. But honestly that is outside the power (mostly) of the government of Uganda.

Largely the point I am making is that governments like Uganda's need aid from countries like Ireland to cover the costs of healthcare and education of their people. Now if this year you had 1 million people needing clean water and in ten years you have maybe 1.5million needing clean water then Uganda is going to spend all its money on improving infrastruture just to maintain subsistence and little on education which really lifts people out of poverty. So I really actually see increasing population in countries like Uganda as a burden on the Irish taxpayer as much as anyone else.

Uganda can and does seek to improve its trade realtions as do other countries through groups such as the G77. People in the rich countries might also be able to have some impact by getting their governments to implement better and more equitable trade realtions with the developing world. I don't think Uganda should have to implement population control measures because of bad terms of trade imposed by rich countries. Why don't rich countries give fairer trade terms instead then developing countries could develop faster and put in place the necessary infrastructure to deal with its population growth?

bonkey

The Saint wrote:

Governments that are not corrupt, that don't embezzle the country's cash, that are preferably democratic, that work for the good of the people and not themselves, etc...

Do they exist anywhere?

gbh

The Saint wrote:

Uganda can and does seek to improve its trade realtions as do other countries through groups such as the G77. People in the rich countries might also be able to have some impact by getting their governments to implement better and more equitable trade realtions with the developing world. I don't think Uganda should have to implement population control measures because of bad terms of trade imposed by rich countries. Why don't rich countries give fairer trade terms instead then developing countries could develop faster and put in place the necessary infrastructure to deal with its population growth?

Well cause Uganda isnt strategically important to rich countries and that really is how they place importance on trade. If you waited for the rich countries to help Uganda to trade itself out of poverty it will take a while.

At the same time you have to be wary that Uganda doesnt for example change its production over night from cereal for its people to the production of coffee or tobacco for export. It has to have something to trade. Japan and the Asian tigers produce cheap electrics, toys, clothes, etc and that is why they benefit from trade. Not so straight forward for Uganda.

But I agree lifting a country out of poverty takes a lot of steps not just managing population growth. Good governance is one of them of course but not the only step. Good education is another but again is no good unless you attract FDI and can lead to a brain drain.

The Saint

bonkey wrote:

Do they exist anywhere?

Not necessarily but the government of Tanzania is better than that of Mugabe. While not every government is perfect there is a spectrum.

The Saint

gbh wrote:

Well cause Uganda isnt strategically important to rich countries and that really is how they place importance on trade. If you waited for the rich countries to help Uganda to trade itself out of poverty it will take a while.

It should at least be given the opportunity to trade on a level playing field with the rich countries and not implement policies that retard development. This would at least increase the rate of development. Development anywhere takes time and using that as an excuse for rich countries to do nothing is pretty bad. I still don’t understand why poor countries should have to implement population controlling measures because of the policies of rich countries. Surely the first thing to do would be to change those policies so development can take place.

gbh wrote:

At the same time you have to be wary that Uganda doesn’t for example change its production over night from cereal for its people to the production of coffee or tobacco for export. It has to have something to trade. Japan and the Asian tigers produce cheap electrics, toys, clothes, etc and that is why they benefit from trade. Not so straight forward for Uganda.

Yes that was the problem that poor countries had in the 80's when structural adjustment programmes were implemented. Farms that were used for subsistence farming was used for commercial farming for exports and people starved. If poor countries can trade excess produce at fair prices then they will be able to diversify to commercial cash crops that will generate more income. The countries can them diversify into processing which can then help lead to industrialisation. The Asian tigers undertook a different for of development than many countries and certainly than Africa can undertake. Development actually took place there under colonialism whereas in Africa it did not. They used policies of import substitution and protected and financed fledgling industries and only opened their economies up to the international market when they were able to compete. Korea actually undertook intentional development under a military regime that ceded power when development was complete.

newby.204

Akrasia wrote:

Yep.

And education for all. (well, quality education, not religious based education that just perpetuates the patriarchal attitude that suppresses women)

If we spent a tiny fraction of the money we spend on tools to blow each other up on education instead, the global poverty situation might actually start to improve instead of continuing to worsen.

Excuse the cynicism, with ref to the eboldened text, that would mean that the rich wouldnt get richer wouldnt it , and by rich i mean international arms trade, largely, but not exclusive to, the US

silverharp

Victor wrote:

3.4% GDP growth compunded over 43 years would result in the economy being 407% its current size, thereby maintaining the current standard of living. Actual GDP growth is well in excess of that.

That's a hell of an assumption, peak oil will thow a spanner in the works. I can't see a scanario where global population and the global economy can have any positive growth over a 40 year period if fossil fuel depletion could be in excess of 1% per year from 2010.

DadaKopf

the saint wrote:

Good governence and more equitable prade relations would help in development in the third world. The structural adjustment programmes and loan conditionalities imposed by the IMF and World Bank in the 1980's also have a lot to answer for. If rich countries believe in free trade then they should implement it not forcing poor countries to open up their economies while protecting their own.

This is quite a contradiction. While it's the case that IMF and World Bank conditionalities did more harm than good, they have not been done away with. Quite the opposite: 'good governance' conditions attached to aid has become the 'new conditionality', or 'political conditionalities' which not only replace the old economic conditionalities, but actually extend them. In other words, the World Bank has used talk of 'good governance' to conceal the fact that it's business as usual, and then some. The reason this is working as an excuse is because people have only a vague understanding of what 'good governance' actually means in this context. It's pure optics that has a very particular effect in strengthening the power of international aid donors.

the saint wrote:

Governments that are not corrupt, that don't embezzle the country's cash, that are preferably democratic, that work for the good of the people and not themselves, etc...

Does this exist anywhere? Who is to say any system is the 'correct one'? And while you're on a corruption rant, why not remember the fact that there's two sides to corruption: someone who accepts a bribe, and someone who gives it. What about Irish companies involved in bribing African people? What about the $1 trillion laundered each year through Western banks? The developed world supplies this corruption, too, you know.

The Saint

DadaKopf wrote:

This is quite a contradiction. While it's the case that IMF and World Bank conditionalities did more harm than good, they have not been done away with. Quite the opposite: 'good governance' conditions attached to aid has become the 'new conditionality', or 'political conditionalities' which not only replace the old economic conditionalities, but actually extend them. In other words, the World Bank has used talk of 'good governance' to conceal the fact that it's business as usual, and then some. The reason this is working as an excuse is because people have only a vague understanding of what 'good governance' actually means in this context. It's pure optics that has a very particular effect in strengthening the power of international aid donors.

Where's the contradiction? I never stated that conditionalities have been done away with and I am quite aware that these conditionalities are being used as a weapon by the rich countries throught the Bretton Woods institutions. You can't really expect this to be any different to when these institutions operate on a dollar-a-vote basis. Obviously rich countries are going to seek to retain or enhance their position. I never stated that good governance should be determined by these institutions and should be used as a weapon.

DadaKopf wrote:

Does this exist anywhere? Who is to say any system is the 'correct one'? And while you're on a corruption rant, why not remember the fact that there's two sides to corruption: someone who accepts a bribe, and someone who gives it. What about Irish companies involved in bribing African people? What about the $1 trillion laundered each year through Western banks? The developed world supplies this corruption, too, you know.

I'm not saying that it exist everywhere or anywhere, I'm just stating that this kind of situation (or something close to it) is a lot more ideal than outright corruption. I used the example above of comparing Tanzania and Zimbabwe. There is obviously a spectrum and I think being on the cleaner side of it would aid development a lot more. I'm aware that rich countries have a role to play in not allowing their people from instigating this corruption and perhaps they should act more strongly in stopping it. Wowever this is probably not in their 'national interests' as we saw with the UK/Saudi/BAE farce.

gbh

I think the general public in the west dont see the full picture and only the surface of what goes on. While we see G8 meetings and pledges of support etc which has yet largely to materialise, the same politicians sign deals to exploit the resources of the developing world.

You cant really trust western politicians on this issue because they always put the interests of their own country first. After all running a country is similar to running a corporation and if you dont make a profit from your business then you wont be in the job very long.

DadaKopf

Where's the contradiction? I never stated that conditionalities have been done away with and I am quite aware that these conditionalities are being used as a weapon by the rich countries throught the Bretton Woods institutions.

This is the contradiction: you say economic conditionalities were bad for developing countries, then call for 'good governance' which is in effect the same thing.

Good Governance, as used here, is the good governance of policymakers, which is designed to engineer exactly what you oppose. Moreover, 'good governance' does not equal 'democracy' in the sense of changing how 'power is distributed across state and society' (the World Bank's words). Good governance in their parlence means 'minimal democracy with elite rule' designed to prise open developing countries' markets to international forces when they're not ready.

So, please, stop using this term. Use another one.

The Saint

DadaKopf wrote:

This is the contradiction: you say economic conditionalities were bad for developing countries, then call for 'good governance' which is in effect the same thing.

There is no contradiction. You're assuming that I'm taking the World Banks position on conditionalities based on good governance. I'm not. I'm just merely stating that 'good governence' would help development not that is a conditionality. I'm not saying that the World Banks definition of good governance is right. It's a subjective term but I was using it quite narrowly to mean lack of corruption and preferably democracy.

DadaKopf wrote:

Good Governance, as used here, is the good governance of policymakers, which is designed to engineer exactly what you oppose. Moreover, 'good governance' does not equal 'democracy' in the sense of changing how 'power is distributed across state and society' (the World Bank's words). Good governance in their parlence means 'minimal democracy with elite rule' designed to prise open developing countries' markets to international forces when they're not ready.

So, please, stop using this term. Use another one.

Just because you are taking good governance to mean conditionaly base rules by the World Bank and IMF doesn't mean that I have to. I've already described what I mean by good governance. I don't know whay you keep assuming that I'm taking the BWI definition of it. I'm well aware that development can take place without demeocracy. I even pointed to the example to South Korea that developed under a military regime. China is another example. I just believe that democracy is preferable. We are talking about population growth and sustainabilty. Thats why I brought up the case of India in another thread as famines haven't occoured since independence as the often did under colonial rule.

Once again, I'm not using the term good governence as the IMF and World Bank use it. You're assuming that. I'm not going to stop using the term as I don't see why these institutions should have the monopoly of the meaning of good governance. As I said before, it's a subjective term. I'm just giving my view.

The Saint

Just thought I'd post a UN definition on good governence to show what I'm getting at and to show that the IMF and World Bank don't have a monopoly on the term.

Participation

Participation by both men and women is a key cornerstone of good governance. Participation could be either direct or through legitimate intermediate institutions or representatives. It is important to point out that representative democracy does not necessarily mean that the concerns of the most vulnerable in society would be taken into consideration in decision making. Participation needs to be informed and organized. This means freedom of association and expression on the one hand and an organized civil society on the other hand.

Rule of law

Good governance requires fair legal frameworks that are enforced impartially. It also requires full protection of human rights, particularly those of minorities. Impartial enforcement of laws requires an independent judiciary and an impartial and incorruptible police force.

Transparency

Transparency means that decisions taken and their enforcement are done in a manner that follows rules and regulations. It also means that information is freely available and directly accessible to those who will be affected by such decisions and their enforcement. It also means that enough information is provided and that it is provided in easily understandable forms and media.

Responsiveness

Good governance requires that institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders within a reasonable timeframe.

Consensus oriented

There are several actors and as many view points in a given society. Good governance requires mediation of the different interests in society to reach a broad consensus in society on what is in the best interest of the whole community and how this can be achieved. It also requires a broad and long-term perspective on what is needed for sustainable human development and how to achieve the goals of such development. This can only result from an understanding of the historical, cultural and social contexts of a given society or community.

Equity and inclusiveness

A society’s well being depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do not feel excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires all groups, but particularly the most vulnerable, have opportunities to improve or maintain their well being.

Effectiveness and efficiency

Good governance means that processes and institutions produce results that meet the needs of society while making the best use of resources at their disposal. The concept of efficiency in the context of good governance also covers the sustainable use of natural resources and the protection of the environment.

Accountability

Accountability is a key requirement of good governance. Not only governmental institutions but also the private sector and civil society organizations must be accountable to the public and to their institutional stakeholders. Who is accountable to whom varies depending on whether decisions or actions taken are internal or external to an organization or institution. In general an organization or an institution is accountable to those who will be affected by its decisions or actions. Accountability cannot be enforced without transparency and the rule of law.

Húrin

Akrasia wrote:

If we spent a tiny fraction of the money we spend on tools to blow each other up on education instead, the global poverty situation might actually start to improve instead of continuing to worsen.

That's right. Earth is capable of providing food for all. It just has to be cultivated correctly. If more money were diverted from military budgets to advancing the third world methods of agriculture (there are vast areas which have not been touched by the green revolution) everyone would be better off.

PS is Uganda a Catholic country?

Victor

Uganda isn't as dependant on other countries for oil - it doesn't have a severe winter.

gbh wrote:

At the same time you have to be wary that Uganda doesnt for example change its production over night from cereal for its people to the production of coffee or tobacco for export.

Coffee is Uganda's major export.

From www.cia.gov

Agriculture - products: coffee, tea, cotton, tobacco, cassava (tapioca), potatoes, corn, millet, pulses, cut flowers; beef, goat meat, milk, poultry

Industries: sugar, brewing, tobacco, cotton textiles; cement, steel production

Exports - commodities: coffee, fish and fish products, tea, cotton, flowers, horticultural products; gold

Imports - commodities: capital equipment, vehicles, petroleum, medical supplies; cereals

So while they seem to get a second slice in processing some agricultural products, like the cotton and which can be used locally there does seem to be a dependence on cash crops - coffee, tea, tobacco and cut flowers - at the expense of staples.

gbh

I think the problem is that if you don't control population growth or give people family planning options then you get a situation where a lot of children, maybe 2 or 3 out of 5 don't survive childhood and generally the quality of life is difficult for everyone.. you get high density cities, poor water and sanitation which in turn causes more diseases. Less people might mean better civilian infrastructure and cleaner water etc. You can't really call a government a bad government when it doesn't have the resources to deal with increasing populations.

gbh

H&#250 wrote: »

That's right. Earth is capable of providing food for all. It just has to be cultivated correctly. If more money were diverted from military budgets to advancing the third world methods of agriculture (there are vast areas which have not been touched by the green revolution) everyone would be better off.

PS is Uganda a Catholic country?

45% catholic I think ... but Catholicism is fairly pervasive throughout Africa and more people go to church I would say in Uganda than in maybe Britain where attendence is about 5%. I think the church has more influence in Africa than in any other continent.

Also, I don't agree that the world is able to provide food for all. Yes if everyone farmed perfectly etc. But what about cutting down rainforests for agriculture and wood resources, desertification caused by over-grazing and fresh water pollution caused by fertiliser and other chemical runoffs? Already we are seeing problems with over fishing in the Atlantic where cod stocks have collapsed so I don't think you can argue that the world has an infinite capacity to feed it's people.