International Development & Poverty Reduction
For a recent and rather public debate (from an international
perspective)
over quantity versus quality of growth (the latter referring to
the "development" dimensions of growth), see the Economist
critique of the World Bank's present strategies and the World
Bank's reply.
Inequality versus Poverty Alleviation? One
of
the Major current debates - does economic growth necessarily require
growing
inequality?
-
Does economic growth lead to reduced poverty?
-
recent history (1980 - 1998) suggests that total numbers in absolute
poverty
is pretty stationary (1.2bn people with incomes less than $1/per day,
as
estimated on a consistent basis by the World Bank - declining since
1980
by 200m people), so proportion is falling (from 31% to 20% of the
world's
population over 18 years) since world population is still rising. This
is a pretty spectacular counter-argument to those who suggest that
globalisation
condemns more people to poverty and only benefits the rich.
-
Average Incomes per head between countries is becoming more, not less,
equal (when weighted by population), though rapid growth in both India
and China are largely repsonsible for this - excluding these two very
l;arge
countries alters the conclusion - with no obvious trend since
1980.
However, what is the ground for excluing 40% of the world's population?
(60% in 1980)
-
Income inequality may have tended to increase within countries in the
recent
past, though the basis of these estimates is disputed. The World
Bank's experts (David Dollar and Aart Kraay (Foreign Affairs))
estimates
that world-wide income inequality peaked in the 1970s, and that the gap
between a randomly selected individual and the world average income per
head is now (1995) 78%, roughly were it was in 1950, while the peak in
1970 was 88%.
-
However, the evidence can be contested and scholars can be found who
can
argue persuasively that inequality is growing rather than declining
-
Notwithstanding, it seems incontestable that fewer peope (even if still
an unacceptably large number) now die or are threatened with absolute
starvation
than was the case in the 1950s - when awefully huge numbers did
actually
die of starvation.
-
In any event, maybe the extent of world poverty is unacceptable to
civilised
hearts and minds - 85% of world income goes to 20% of the population,
and
6% to 60%. The absolute gap between rich and poor is still
rising,
despite the proposition that relative poverty levels are falling (the
poor
countries tending to grow faster, from low bases, than the rich - so
the
relative gap is falling, although the absolute gap is still rising)
-
But what is the proposed solution to this? Even with a perfectly
equal distribution of income, normal individual life-cycle savings and
borrowings would result in 40% of the population owning 60% of the
wealth.
-
Should the rich donate sufficient of the their earnings to the poor to
ensure absolute equality? What would be the consequences for
incentives
and penalties to try and do better? In any event, if the rich
will
not voluntarily increase their aid donations, what is the solution?
-
However, a significantly more equal world might be more stable,
peaceful
and thus prosperous.
-
Although one can quarrel with the numbers, and claim that we do not
really
know how many poor there are, it does seem clear that more rapid
economic
growth for the poorer regions is the only practical way of reducing
poverty
- given that the rich are not going to increase their aid donations
substantially
(unless successfully balckmailed by "terrorism", perhaps)
-
Does liberalisation, deregulated markets, prudent macroeconomics
(fiscal
balance and low inflation) necessarily produce growth? Or are
these
exhibitions those of the successful countries, whose growth is
otherwise
explained by diffusion of technical capacity and adaptation? It
seems
clear that agricultural protection has been employed by most developed
countries in the interests of income equalisation (protection of
declining
industries), and only when countries become substantially rich are they
willing to even contemplate reducing this protection.
-
Biggest Policy challenge is to accelerate economic growth in poor
countries
and backward regions
-
Open markets and foreign direct investment both make important
contributions
to such growth
-
Self-sufficiency and protection does not help such growth.
-
But do these propositions necessarily mean that full and complete
liberalisation
of markets is necessarily always a good thing (what about encouraging
domestic
and local industries?) or necessarily the top priority (there are other
things which are necessary to achieve growth)
-
One enduring characterisation of the debates about development is the
contrast
between:
-
Dependence - underdevelopment a consequence of external
exploitation,
asset stripping or colonisation etc. (underdevelopment caused by
inappropriate
and inequitable
distribution of gains from development and trade
between the rich and the poor) - a common view amongst those who feel
especially
guilty about the good fortune of their birth - and typically leads to
beliefs
that development, at least as practiced by the western world, depends
on
inequality and demands that ineaqualities be widened rather than
narrowed
-
Inherent/Internal - underdevelopment a consequence of
tyranny, poor
governance, market failures, lack of appropriate market institutions
and
rules, fraud & corruption etc. (underdevelopment essentially
problems
of economic
efficiency (resource allocation) - market failures,
many caused or exacerbated by government or policy failures) - a common
view amongst those who feel that an apparently natural human ambition
for
more gilt (income and wealth) can be turned to the common good, if
properly
governed.
-
Economic Fact: economic development requires at least
temporary
inequality - the profit motive, rewarding innovation through temporary
excess profits, is a necessary (though not sufficient) engine of
economic
development - economies need entrepreneurs. If we choose to tax
away
these profits and higher incomes, we remove the economic incentive to
innovate,
and must replace it with some other incentive, or it won't happen. But
any incentive to be different, and take risks will necessarily create
inequality,
at least for a time (until others catch up).
Reference: World Bank Progress in
Poverty
Reduction (Executive Summary), following the World Development
Report,
2000/2001.
What is the Development Process?
Streeten (What Price Food?: Agricultural Price Policies in
Developing
Countries, Macmillan, 1987) encapsulates the necessary elements of an
effective
economic system for the production and distribution of food under the 6
I headings:
-
Innovation technology, especially irrigation, varieties of
crops
and livestock, and appropriate management practices;
-
Incentives the right prices for outputs and inputs;
-
Inputs need to be available and accessible, including
credit);
-
Infrastructure transportation and storage, as well as
properly functioning
markets, including the management of risk);
-
Institutions - the rules and procedures and accepted
practices rather
than the specific organisations, especially for: laws of contract, lack
of fraud, marketing and land ownership & operation and property
rights
- (the social infrastructure, if you like);
-
Information - the extension of techniques as well as
marketing information
and credit availabilities.
With these elements in place, it is possible to expect the market
system
to deliver appropriate and affordable supplies in the right places at
the
right times and in the right forms.
Peter Hazell, International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington,
presents a brief but highly relevant and articulate summary of the
problems
facing the world in
securing food supplies without compromising the environmental base
on which it depends in the Introduction to a Special Issue of the
journal:
Agricultural Economics
(Elsevier) on Agricultural Growth, Poverty, and the Environment, Vol
19, Nos 1-2, September, 1998. In summary:
-
Hunger and malnutrition persist, often because past agric. growth was
insufficient
or failed to benefit the poor (exacerbated by national mismanagement
and,
in extremis, civil conflict).
-
Increases in popn. growth and per capita incomes -> increasing
demand ->
continued increases in agric. productivity, against evidence of some
slowing
in this.
-
Growth in productivity and limited prospects for expansion of cropped
and
irrigated areas.
-
Environmental problems could check this increase in productivity
further,
as well as imposing health, welfare and environmental costs both
nationally
and
-
Internationally: where environmental issues generally fall into two
categories:
over-intensification (typical of developed countries); over-population
relative to existing agricultural technology and practice, leading to
depletion
of natural resource and expansion into more fragile areas (frequently
in
LDCs)
"Continued agricultural growth will be a necessity, not an option,
for most developing countries. .... These three goals (growth, poverty
alleviation and environmental
sustainability) are not necessarily complementary, and cannot be taken
for granted. But a high degree of complementarity is more likely to be
achieved when agricultural
development is: a) broadly based and involves small and medium sized
farms; b) market driven; c) participatory and decentralised; d) driven
by productivity enhancing
technological change that does not degrade the resource base."
The post-war history of international development assistance can
be roughly described as falling into the following phases:
1950s - 1960s: generating the requirements for agricultural growth
as
the 6 Is above.
1970s - 1980s: focus shifted to reduce poverty and food insecurity,
and added six 'equity modifiers' to the 6 Is for growth, as follows;
-
Broad-based development - small and medium farms critical, since
economies
of scale at farm level are limited (especially in labour rich and
capital
poor economies), means prioritising smaller farms for inputs, credit,
technology,
marketing
-
Land reforms - where productive land is too concentrated amongs
plantations
or larger farms
-
Invest in Human capital - education, clean water, health, family
planning
and nutrition
-
Women important in the development process and warrant targeted
programmes
-
Particiaption of all in development is critical
-
Rural non-farm economy needs promotion and development
1990s: focus on environmental sustainability - where the key principles
are still being worked out. Hazell suggests the following:
-
Priority to backward regions and resource poor areas (where the threat
of over-use is greatest)
-
R&D should concentrate on broader aspects of land management at
watershed
and landscape levels, as well as environmental impacts and effects at
farm
and field levels
-
Secure property rights over land and natural resources, making full use
of indigenous practices and systems (incluidng either privatising
common
property resources, or strengthening community rights and management
systems
-
Resolve externalities through taxes on polluters or degraders (where
free
market prices may well not be optimal for resource sustainablity)
-
Devlolve and improve public or common management and institutional
systems
-
Correct price distortions (remove subsidies on inputs, though make sure
the input supply is effective and competitive)
-
Monitor resource use and degradation, and educate population on the
effects
Essential preconditions for growth?
-
A stable State (government), coupled with prudent macroeconomic
management
- fiscal responsibility and monetary stability & security.
-
Security of the person and of property
-
Widespread literacy and numeracy
-
Basic health
-
Adequate infrastructure
-
Minimum of bureaucratic red-tape and lack of corruption
-
Broad acceptance of market forces
-
Financial system capable of transfering savings to effective uses
-
Possibly some inequality in income and asset distribution (with the
rich
investing more, in more concentrated and managed form, than the poor)?
Role of Agriculture in Development?
-
Traditional view that industrialisation led and farming followed (as in
Western Europe??)
-
Non agricultural sectors expanding, sucking labour out of subsistence
farming
and rural areas and into factories
-
Industrialisation providing the technology for commercial farming to
feed
the workforce with far fewer people
-
A more historically balanced view is that
-
agricultural technical and productivity change, (Jethro Tull's seed
drill
in the UK) allows fewer people to feed more non farm people
-
but only if coupled with +/- serious land reform, in which previously
subsistance
farmers leave the land to commercial agriculture
-
and with market development (at least first in the rural areas where
most
people live) in other sectors than agriculture, increasing the demand
for
purchased food from the commerical farms and providing the pull factors
to encourage people to give up subsistance farming (requires secure and
relatively stable markets)
-
leads to the the development of an 'industrial' domestic agriculture
(few
people and large marketable surplus), also led to an industrialisation
and commercialisation of the countryside.
-
the industrial revolution (substituting steam for animal and human
power,
and mineral reosurces and engineering for timber) leads to further
commercialisation
and concentration of industry in larger scale and mainly urban factories
-
{where the development process in the New World was also different in
the
exploitation of 'virgin' lands - denied the present generation of LDCs
and economies in transition}
-
What does seem clear is that, in most cases, development involves fewer
people earning a full time living from farming, and more people earning
livings from other things. Agriculture is a declining industry in
the development process, but can only be so if it becomes more
productive.
The only exception is in those regions and countries which develop a
substantial
food export capacity - allowing agriculture to be a leading rather than
declining sector.
-
What is also apparent from a general view of history is that people
(especially
when supported by democracy) are not willing to leave the declining
sector
to the mercy of the market, but seek to support their ancestral
heritage
(small and subsistence farmers) as and when they become rich and secure
enoug to do so - farm support policies are ubiquitous amongst developed
countries.
-
It is also clear that market price support and protection (based on
production)
are by far the most obvious and popular forms of such support. If
the world (through the URAA and the WTO) have now decided that these
forms
of support are not to be allowed, then there is a serious
challenge
to policy makers and advisors to provide some equivalently obvious and
apparent system of support and transfer to the declining sectors in
developing
and transition economies. It is not clear that policy analysis
and
development is yet up this challenge.
Back to main notes.