While reading this article, the main thought that stayed throughout the article was that Africa cannot be considered as one large unit. Africa is a continent consisting of several countries that have each faced various historical, geographical, and political issues because of the many rivals as well as the messy "Scramble for Africa" period. Martin Ravallion does acknowledge at the end of the paper that Africa is many different countries, but he doesn't dwell on this issue. In my mind, this is more important than he states in his paper.
China's historical story is also very different from the conquests of African nations. As Ravallion spends a few lines about this article, I do think this point should have been more emphasized. African countries are best compared to countries within Africa.
A good example would be Botswana. Nations such as Botswana have been studied by Daron Acemoglu and his colleagues in a paper called “An African Success Story: Botswana.” The primary reason determined to make Botswana a “success story,” is the presence of strong institutions, which are coined as institutions of private property. For 35 years, Botswana has been in the lead and has been kept as an exemplar for other African nations. Despite the colonization that Botswana faced by the British, the institutions managed to stay intact.
These strong institutions and a highly involved government in Botswana is similar to the parallels made in this paper of China's successes. Unfortunately, not all countries have economic or politicial institutions in place.
Not all hope is lost however...I recently read an article on CNN about agricultural sector advancement/expansion. The presidents of Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi are meeting with Calestous Juma of Harvard regarding the future of Africa in agricultural exports. Reading Ravollion's article gave a fresh perspective and it is definitely valuable because it examines the importance of the agricultural sector in Africa that could help stimulate economic growth in the future.
Although there is little doubt that sub-Saharan Africa can take pointers from China’s developmental trajectory, namely in focusing on agricultural development as a means to decrease poverty and inequality measures, I am more skeptical than are the authors of the article about the efficacy of projecting China’s reforms on the sub-Sahara African economy at large. Firstly, sub-Saharan Africa is delineated by more than thirty countries, many of which have conflicting interests and/or internal conflicts that would make the author’s “internal market integration” extremely difficult to achieve. Moreover, the authors posit that China’s rural reforms were initiated as a response to a crisis. Is “crisis” necessary to begin restructuring, and if so, doesn’t the majority of Africa’s widely diverse population living in poverty, many in extreme poverty, constitute a crisis? I just think that the events precipitating China’s agricultural reform policies differ so much from today’s Africa, that I question how much of China’s policies are practically applicable. For example, Africa cannot reallocate land among the population as China did, and the human capital endowments of Chinese workers were much higher than those of rural farmers in Africa today. Additionally, African farmland faces challenges quite different than China. A blanket policy prescription will definitely fall short of achievement of growth. Agricultural growth undoubtedly plays an important role in poverty and inequality reduction in Africa as in China, but the mechanisms through which such agricultural growth is achieved will most likely prove to be different.
To be frank, while the article did bring up many valid points about agricultural surpluses and the role state-led development played in China’s development, it left me more questions than it provided answers for. Thinking about development economics (as I understand it and have learned so far this term), the fact that I was left with more questions may be an indication of a “good” article. One factor I kept thinking about was the scale of agricultural production. The article credits the HRS with providing incentives for farmers to grow beyond what state collection quotas required from them. As I understand it, the surplus produced would depend on the efficiency of agriculture or the size of the population engaged in farming. Would population levels engaged in subsistence agriculture in Africa be large enough (or at least comparable to China’s) to produce enough surpluses to provide for economic growth? Or could capital be used to make agriculture efficient enough to produce large surpluses. The article also made light of China’s better integrated markets and noted that African countries face much greater challenges moving goods between regions, cities, population centers and transport hubs. Wouldn’t these barriers also pose a great challenge to Africa following China’s lead by developing agricultural surpluses as a precursor to economic development? I also had a question about agricultural surpluses in general. If I remember correctly, the paper on conditional cash transfers concluded that much of the extra income received by families went towards purchasing more food and nutritional intake. What’s to say that extra agricultural surplus won’t go to families’ food needs? That is not meant to be a criticism of using agricultural surplus for consumption, but is actually a question that I was hoping to gain some insight into. What economic structures or incentives can both help feed families and leave enough agricultural surpluses for sale/export/barter and future development?
The part of the paper that stood out to me was the section on the Communist Party’s 11th Congress in China where an ideological shift was made to the idea that “public policy should be based on evidence…the intellectual approach of seeking truth from facts.” This seems like such a logical and obvious policy to employ, however it is not always practiced. In China, this method was finally embraced and research centers were put together to test certain policies on small scales at first and then the successful policies would be used on larger scales and the unsuccessful ones were scrapped. China’s systematic and logical approach to growth is what keeps China continually growing. In the United States however, it seems as if there is an unfortunate shift towards policies that are backed only by the rhetoric of politicians while studies done by scientists and economists are often ignored in favor of what is politically most appealing. Politicians and their followers are too quick to embrace ideologies that are too broad in their claims. For example, people who claim all government spending is bad and hurts the economy often fail to break down government spending into different types and determine which are beneficial and which are indeed harmful based on research and academic studies. China grew into a giant in the world economy by instituting reforms based on research and the United States must not stray from that method of success.
I agree that the article brings up several interesting points about possible examples for African development, especially in the agricultural sector. China has undoubtedly made strides in economic development and growth at an almost unprecedented rate. However, as others have noted the historical and demographic histories as well as the organizational realities of the two regions are entirely different. China, although an extremely large country, and therefore difficult to administer efficiently, is far more ethnically homogeneous than sub-Saharan Africa. Even if all of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa opted to form a trade union, tribal differences and a history of violence still stand between them.
AIDS prevalence is another key difference in examining development policy between the two countries. As the authors point out, the Chinese work force just before the major economic take-off, was fairly well-educated, while the average population in sub-Saharan Africa does not have high enrollment or literacy rates. Until the major health crisis which is killing off a high percentage of the working age population in many of these states can be solved, policies focusing on agricultural employment and development will not be as effective.
China's history of communism also created strong central institutions and a large bureaucracy, allowing for the implementation of land redistribution and development policies. In contrast, institutions in sub-Saharan Africa are often notoriously weak and corrupt, making effective implementation and administration almost impossible, especially without foreign aid and oversight.
As others have mentioned previously, poverty alleviation policies in Africa will differ significantly from that of China. However, I do buy the argument that Ravallion makes. It’s somewhat along the lines of what Dani Rodrik proposed in his Growth Strategies paper in the sense that growth strategies cannot be implemented in the same way for all countries/continents. I think Ravallion makes it clear that Africa has specific constraints – higher inequality, higher dependency rates, and lower population density – that China did not face.
Ravallion’s recommendations for Africa after outlining how China succeeded in poverty alleviation aligned with some of the material from the textbook. For example, he proposed that immediate agricultural and rural reform in Africa would help replicated China’s long run success. He also noted that it’s problematic, because many LDCs choose instead to ignore rural labor or to try to jumpstart their economy by creating capital intensive manufacturing sectors. The modern-sector enrichment growth typology depicts that this behavior only increases inequality.
I had a question though, in the ‘Understanding China’s (uneven) Progress…’ where Ravallion mentions that it wasn’t a trade expansion per se, but ‘overall development policies’ that contributed to China’s poverty reduction. Specifically, manufacturing sectors in these areas were more labor intensive and there was greater external trade. Why is that the case? If I understand correctly, Ravallion suggests that China first made improvements in the agricultural sector – and it was this initial investment that enabled them to create a manufacturing sector and attract the necessary labor (which required rudimentary education provided in the rural sector).
This works very well in China’s poverty reduction goals because of the hukou system. There was already a 1% poverty rate (less than $1/day) in the cities, and 22% in rural China. But because relocating is limited, there would not be an opportunity for a lot of unemployment/large informal sector as predicted in the rural-urban migration model. I’m curious if this method would be even more effective in SSA. 51% live on less than $1/day in the rural sector, but 40% in the urban areas also live on less than $1/day. With the ratio being about equal, perhaps it would make sense to invest heavily in agricultural reform, thus reducing poverty in the rural sector and creating a greater incentive for people to stay on the farms instead of going to the city (with already high poverty rates) in hopes of a better job.
As many others have pointed out, Africa certainly faces different constraints than China did before it decreasing its poverty rate. It the governmental structure that strikes me as most problematic when attempting to implement China’s poverty-reduction plan to African countries. Ravallion teaches two key lessons regarding China’s success against poverty. The first focuses on increased small-scale agriculture productivity. The second highlights the need for strong leadership and competent public administration within the government. Here lies the critical difference. As Rodrik stressed, institutions matter. China already had a strong (perhaps too strong) central government united under Communism. Africa, on the other hand, is a spattering of 48 nations, many whose borders were drawn by colonizers years ago, dividing some tribes and pushing others into closer proximity with each other. Countries have been plagued by civil wars, ruled by incompetent and corrupt leaders, and ravaged by disease, especially HIV/AIDS. Though Africa has made great progress in recent years, it is still a collection of countries with loose ties to each other and populations sparsely distributed as opposed to one giant country made of a high-density homogeneous population. China may serve as an “economic role model” for the continent, but in order for Ravallion’s idea to become reality, Africa must make substantial progress in establishing legitimate and effective governments that cooperate with each other, build the necessary public infrastructure, and implement changes in economic policies. The current structure of Africa is too decentralized to form a united front on poverty reduction measures as China did.
I agree with a few of the comments above which note the worlds sometimes ignorant grouping of "Africa" as a cohesive unit. In fact it is 54 countries most of which were determined by the borders of western colonies. The shear number of language barriers which must be crossed in order to impliment any policy, good or bad, is one example of a hinderence which China did not necessarily have. The article does finally make the distinction between the African continent and the country of China, however, the distinction is not clearly stated in the paper. The African Union is about as close as the continent gets to cohesion, and anyone who know about the AU can agree it lacks to much to be effective. However, regardless of the potential for continent-wide successful implimentation of pro-poor policies, I agree generally with the conclusions that institutional structure is necessary for anything to work, and that poverty reducing growth must begin in the agricultural sector. The paper discussed the abundance of land and low population densities across the continent relative to China. However, many countries in Africa are known for land inequality. This means there is a great potential for land reform, and that if done correctly, could have profound impacts on development. I would like to note that for the development in China to occur, I am not so sure it would have been possible in a democratic state, albeit that most non-democratic governments in Africa are authoritarian. However, I still think that politically, there will certainly be trouble in promoting pro-poor policies in a democracy. Corruption may be just to great in most African democracies to overcome the inequality between those with ecomomic power to influence politicians and the rural poor. The simple fact that infrastructure is not sufficient creates a disconnect between the lower class and the elites. I do recognize the potential for change in Africa, particularly in the area of poverty and inequality reduction. However, I do believe the paper grossly underestimates the task. It will not require a single push for development in Africa, but 54 individual pushes for development while simultaneously promoting African intercontinental cohesion and diplomacy to promote trade and peace.
Following China's massive development efforts, everyone seems to be attempting to figure out the magic formula in order to recreate this developmental overhaul. However, while I admittedly do not know a lot about this subject, it seems that China was a very specific case and this sort of development could never be recreated in another country with fewer regulations. That being said, there is a lot to learn from China and although the exact Chinese policies may not work in sub-Saharan Africa, their themes and ideas can be studied and perhaps implemented. Government stability and power seems to be a key point in the development of China. Unfortunately, SSA is made up of many countries and lacks the homogeneity of China. This creates the main problem in my mind because, as the article points out, policies cannot be implemented without a strong and unified government. Additionally, bad policies must be abandoned and good policies must be encouraged. This is not occurring in Africa, where the poor have little empowerment and thus no voice in the government. Fixing this problem could be the key in overall development.
I agree with Scott that the article left me with many questions unanswered. But one of the main lessons I got from it was that African policy would be much harder to implement due to the fact that it is comprised of 48 different countries. China is one country that could establish one centralized government instead of having 48 political spectrums. Not to mention the cultures of both countries vary extremely differently based on their institutions and values. There are ideas we can build from that were initiated in China but like Ravallion said, policy is independent based on the turn of events and how countries react in various situations. China should provide foreign direct investment to Africa under certain stipulations that they decide on to enforce policies in Africa. For instance, China only invests if they set up a new health care system that China agrees would be beneficial and successful. Africa is already so far behind that it will take baby steps or major altering events to progress the continent. It is important to not just focus on China but other countries would have at one point in time alleviated poverty and bring all those policies together and pick and choose which ones may work out. It's not an easy process but one that needs to be viewed from multiple sides before any decisions are made.
I am in agreement with everyone who says that SSA cannot be treated as homogeneous, and thus a whole new level of constraints are added. However, we can think about what Professor Casey has told us throughout the term--models are important but not everything. So, the example of China is important for SSA to look at, but not the be all to end all. In looking at China, the institutions in Africa can borrow some of the ideas, but perhaps look to see how they would best mold to SSA. It would likely be beneficial to look at Vietnam and other success stories to compile the best examples possible. Something that stuck out to me in this article was the short-term agricultural and rural development that the authors said needed to take place for their to be successful poverty reduction. Reading this, I remembered how earlier this term we discussed a downfall of building the modern, urban sector alone: there will not be enough jobs, and some people will be better off on the farm where they were at least self-sustaining. Thus, it might be better for SSA, like China, to really focus on the agricultural sector to help those people, and slowly move to the modern sector to increase employment and welfare there.
While I do agree with most of you in saying that Africa should not be counted, this article got me thinking that "what if it could be?". I thought that the article did a great job in investigating China and WHY they have seen the economic success that they have. Ravallion's message to Africa seems to be:
"A partial list would include widespread access to sound basic education and health care, lower dependency rates through lower fertility, greater internal market integration, and greater external openness to foreign investment and trade, consistent with a country’s comparative advantage. "
These certainly did work for China, but I think the ultimate questions is if they would work for Africa. It seems that it would be much harder to have a successful program such as this when there is no central government. However, I think that each country could do their part in attempting to reach these goals and that along with tremendous coordination africa could see come economic success. One other question is that how do the African countries that are plagued with malaria fit in? One is civil war? The goals seem much harder to me when you think about those.
Also, here is an article on China's Township Village Enterprises. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.wlu.edu/stable/765136
Although the decrease in China's absolute poverty has been attributed to trade expansion and foreign direct investment (albeit after a large reduction of poverty), transplanting similar policy reforms to Sub-Saharan Africa is no guarantee of the same results. From Development Econ we know that successful policies and theories cannot be simply be implemented in other contexts without possible implications.
Africa, described as "strife-torn" and with "internal upheavals," is ethnically and geographically diverse, so there are many different areas to consider that may have varying degrees of instability. Similar to China, Africa could see geographical discrepancies in poverty reduction, much like China. Furthermore, Africa has a higher growth rate than China due to increased fertility, a result of higher death rates due to HIV/AIDS and the desire (possible overcompensation) for more children to survive. Because Africa is so expansive and there is a lower population density compared to China, more infrastructure is needed to further develop the country, which will rack up significant costs. Lastly, large increases in manufacturing exports is a characteristic of China's economy, yet Africa is mostly an agricultural economy with small-scale manufacturing. It is clear that what has worked in China cannot simply be transplanted in Africa because of a number of economic, ethnic, and geographic differences.
I think the key words here are "strong state institutions." As Ravallion points out, China practically invented strong public administration policies, and after reading what truly got China's reform going, if SSA has any hope at achieving reform by copying China, they must first establish a reliable governmental power structure within the various countries. This will be challenging not only because they have a history of weak public administration, but they are also individual countries with individual nationalities, that will have to sort out a degree of internal problems before moving to an external economic body.
Considering their weaker government infrastructure it might be better for SSA to look at developing a more inclusive (and possibly intrusive) economic bloc similar to how the European Union began. For radical policies such as China's Household Responsibility System to work, there must be effective and somewhat uniform leadership throughout the country to enforce this responsibility, and hold participating households accountable. Regardless of who SSA looks to for inspiration in economic reforms, they will ultimately need to address their governmental power structure first. In addition, there must be some way to include the current SSA elite. For an effective reform they must "have support from the country's elite. It was important here that many of those in power at the center appear to have had a genuine desire to help the country's rural poor."
SSA needs to look at the current leadership of involved countries and figure out if their true intentions are to reach out and help the poor. If not it will be very difficult to mimic the reform policies of China and/or Vietnam.
This article points out many of the problems with attempting to simply take the strategies that had been effective in eradicating extreme poverty in China and applying them to the developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa faces many challenges that China was not necessarily subjected to—first, it is a group of 48 countries, not one country, meaning that there is much less cohesiveness with policy making, economic issues, social interactions, and cultures in general. Furthermore, Sub-Saharan Africa is growing at a tremendously higher rate than China, and due to poor health care, seeing much shorter life spans. This leads to a disproportionate amount of Sub-Saharan Africa’s population falling into the dependent age group, and without a large enough portion of these children maturing into adulthood, Africa will continue to face a lack in human capital, making it ever so much more challenging to pull themselves out of destitution. This, to me, shows that the primary need for Sub-Saharan Africa right now is health care, because without the ability to reach full potential in human capital or simply extending life spans, the efforts to eradicate poverty in this region will be essentially futile. This reminds me of the article we read earlier in the year that discussed how modeling is not always a good strategy because differences mean that a strategy that is effective in one place could end up being disastrous in another, and I think that is a lot of what we are seeing with applying China’s strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa.
I agree with Emily's point. Obviously Africa cannot be directly compared to China because it is not a single unified country. However, there are benefits of looking at the Chinese model. There are similarities between China's past situation and the current situation in Africa. Without a centralized government, Africa cannot implement a country-wide plan like in China, but areas in need should consider modeling growth after that of China's.
Two of the things the paper touches on that are most interesting to me are the impact of disease in Africa and the difference in population distribution. Earlier in the term we talked about the impact of malaria on the economy in Africa. In truth it's not just malaria that has impacted Africa but other diseases like HIV/AIDS for example have had a devastating impact on the lives of many Africans. China has also been impacted by disease but not nearly as much as Africa. Knowing how dramatic an impact malaria can have on development the higher incidence of disease in Africa may have had a significant impact on the lack of development there. This makes me question whether development in Africa will be possible until the hih levels of disease there are remedied.
I don't have a lot to add to what the paper said about population distribution but I do think it is an interesting idea. Africa is far more rural than China which makes it harder for infrastructure to reach citizens of African countries. This has certainly had a negative impact on development in Africa. That said many economists beleive development must first occur in the rural agricultural sector before the economy as a whole can grow. With such a high percentage of the country living in highly dispersed rural areas one would think that the government would focus on trying to grow the agricultural economy. I think that the failure to do so speaks to two problems. One is the general instability of governments in Africa adn the other is the influence of western minded economists who preach industrial growth as the best solution without fully understanding the specific problems in African countries.
I agree with a lot of what has been said before. What I find an essential ingredient in understanding the uniqueness and success of the Chinese government’s economic reforms is the immediate realization of the power of the poor to destabilize the whole country. Accordingly, after Mao’s death, the central government’s politburo geared a lot of resources to rural areas and the land-locked West. There is certainly a lot to learn from China’s poverty alleviation and growth measures, but one of the basic pre-conditions for China’s model to have worked so well is the fact that poverty alleviation was the No.1 priority of the Communist Party. Despite all other tremendous obstacles many SSA countries face, pro-poor-policies and the gradual empowerment of farmers can only be generated top-down in countries where the disadvantaged are commonly incapable of forming coherent, powerful institutions to fend for their rights. Curiously, China’s only ruling party that is so often deemed to oppress its people did learn from its mistakes (particularly the Great Leap Forward), at least with regards to the economic side. I believe a pro-poor top-down approach in many SSH countries is highly unlikely at this point in time, but might be the single most effective starting point for sustainable structural changes in their economies. Once this hurdle is taken, I see a lot potential for a more prosperous future of the African continent (Clearly, there are huge disparities between the individual countries. I forgot whether Ravallion defines “Africa”, but I am confident that the North African countries, as well as South Africa are to a large extent excluded from this discussion).
It will be interesting to see whether African governments will show more trust and form better (and more truthful?) bondages with the Chinese government as opposed to its former(?) colonizers’ West. This might occur because China appears to display more similarities with African nations than Western industrialized countries. China is itself still a developing country and more importantly, China does not try to export an ideology or even a political system by trading with Africa. This pragmatic approach might appeal to many African leaders and even authoritarian African rulers might be able to see on the example of China that caring for its poor does not only diminish the benefits of the ruling class, but instead also serves to enhance and sustain the ruling party’s long-term power.
As many others have mentioned above, I don’t think you can overstate the importance of recognizing that Africa is 48 distinct countries, each with differing goals, interests, and methods of governance. Additionally, I really like the conclusion that Joe comes to above when he states the need for not only individual countries pushing for development but also, in combination with this, “African intercontinental cohesion and diplomacy.” I think this cohesion between different African nations will ultimately be essential in allowing African countries that face similar situations and circumstances to share their own success stories against poverty among themselves to further expedite the borrowing of strategies against poverty. Success in a neighboring African country could be more readily borrowed and successfully implemented by another African country than could a strategy that originated and was successful on the other side of the globe. Ultimately, it begins to seem that there are so many stark and important differences between the past starting point for China and the current state of Africa that drawing parallels becomes difficult and extremely generalized. However, I think the paper does an excellent job of recognizing the differing constraints between the two and conceding that, while the lessons of focusing on agricultural development and the role of strong leadership and government are general, they are ultimately necessary as well. These general lessons allow for the many differing countries of Africa to personalize these economic goals to their own cultures and circumstances. However, I think the argument could also certainly be made that the most valuable component to looking to other success stories for guidance is not looking at generalizations but instead focusing specifically on how the end product was made into reality.
In addition to the China comparison, I find the relationship between South Korea and Africa's most developed country, Ghana. The economies of Ghana and South Korea strongly resembled each other in the early 1960’s. They both had a newly formed democracy, approximately the same level of GNP and economic aid, similar export products, comparable divisions within their economy between primary products, manufacturing, and services. Today, the per capita GDP in Ghana is only one-fifteenth that of South Korea. South Korea has transformed from its low levels of development to becoming an industrialized nation with the fourteenth largest economy in the world. During the development decade in the 1960’s, many African leaders believed that Africa could achieve in a few decades what Europe had taken centuries to achieve.
I think one of the important variables that is often overlooked is culture which affects the process of development in Africa. The people of China are very different than those in Africa and within the African continent, the people vary significantly as well. The effect of policy implications varies place to place not only on the efficiency of the government, which the article suggests, but also the mindset of the people that are affected by it. I think you can not directly compare the success China or South Korea had to Africa. Yes, agrarian reform would help better the people in Africa, but it would look differently as well. The family structure, work ethic, strength of communities, inequality and attitude towards the government would alter the effect of policy reform country to country. Additionally, from my experience in Ghana, the government will enact programs for change. However, the infrastructure or lack there of hinders the success as well as all of the red tape involved. There is little accountability within the government. In China, their strong government allows for the efficacy of political, economic and social reform.
Another point that is not brought up in the article is the impact of migration. There have been massive movements towards the cities and now a large development of urban poverty that agrarian reform will be unable to fix. At this stage, would it be better to focus reform on industrial infrastructure? or have that be a side effect of advancement in the agricultural sector? Both would eliminate poverty, but Africa needs to decide which pathway would best contribute to larger growth in the future.
ike Ashna, I believe that the largest difficulty in using China's example to help growth in Africa is the fact that SSA is many different countries, while China is just one. The authors addressed this most in their discussion of political institutions, which I absolutely agree are crucial for development. However, when I read the paper, the fact that SSA is made of individual countries brought to mind different difficulties than just problems associated with working with multiple governments. Growth strategies may also be hindered by the fact that African countries have a multitude of different cultures and languages. The fact that there are so many different dialects will certainly impede internal coordination efforts. In addition, the coordination efforts may be further hurt by the fact that the political boundaries are so arbitrary- will people's loyalties be to their state, or tribe, or family? Which cultures place an emphasis on civil cooperation? I was also left wondering how the role of disease will affect growth in SSA. The authors mentioned that HIV/AIDS contributed to Africa's higher dependency ratio, but did not address how its tropical climate makes it a breeding ground for more diseases such as malaria, yellow fever, etc.- obstacles that China did not battle on the same level.
The authors did a good job of alerting the readers to some differences between China and Africa and cautioning against direct applications of Chinese policy to SSA without personalizing them for Africa. However, I'm left wondering what the exact modifications are. If we know the policies have to be altered, what are the alterations that would make the policies work in Africa? The million dollar question...
This article was an interesting analysis, yet I believe Africa's success may not be brought about by instituting carbon copies of Chinese development problems. The underlying differences of Chinese poverty and African poverty seem too great. Chinese finance and investment will have a greater payout than ideas and models within africa. The african preferences and indifference sets will be substantially different than those of the Chinese, so implementing economic policies may not have the same success in a foreign continent. Also, Chinese wealth has increased significantly, but there is still an extreme impoverished community, but as Africa develops, they need to attempt to eliminate the massive disparities. TWealth disparity is existent in essentially all cultures, but ensuring that the middle class is large and that the extreme poor situations are not as bad as before should be an essential goal for Chinese development.
Ravillion's paper was an interesting juxtaposition of China and Africa. Despite its impressive economic growth rate, I never considered China to be somewhat of a "model" for Africa. This was primarily due to my negative view of the Communist Party; however, I quickly learned that this same party implemented quasi, free market reforms than "empowered" the lower, mainly agrarian class. The Household Responsibility System seemed to be the fundamental spark that jump-started China's impressive growth. I thought that Ravillion was apt in adding that China's history and process of development is by no means perfect, not should be implemented in China. He listed three main distinctions/problems that separate Africa from China. I thought the population density factor was interesting. Normally, I would have assumed it be the opposite case--that more land meant more resources per person (ie. not Bangladesh) . However, the lack of infrastructure and mobility makes perfect sense as to why a low population density can limit growth and poverty reduction. Like many others in the class, I initially was skeptical of the comparison, because China is one country with a fairly homogenous populous, while Africa is a continent with many different countries and ethnicities. But I feel that Ravallion adequately addressed this concern by stating that he is merely using select factors and policies in that China that has led them out of poverty. While it is highly unlikely that a country such as Sudan will implement restructuring programs like HRS, it is important for policy makers in Africa and multinational organizations to understand the significance of reform in the primary sector.
While reading this article, the main thought that stayed throughout the article was that Africa cannot be considered as one large unit. Africa is a continent consisting of several countries that have each faced various historical, geographical, and political issues because of the many rivals as well as the messy "Scramble for Africa" period. Martin Ravallion does acknowledge at the end of the paper that Africa is many different countries, but he doesn't dwell on this issue. In my mind, this is more important than he states in his paper.
ReplyDeleteChina's historical story is also very different from the conquests of African nations. As Ravallion spends a few lines about this article, I do think this point should have been more emphasized. African countries are best compared to countries within Africa.
A good example would be Botswana. Nations such as Botswana have been studied by Daron Acemoglu and his colleagues in a paper called “An African Success Story: Botswana.” The primary reason determined to make Botswana a “success story,” is the presence of strong institutions, which are coined as institutions of private property. For 35 years, Botswana has been in the lead and has been kept as an exemplar for other African nations. Despite the colonization that Botswana faced by the British, the institutions managed to stay intact.
These strong institutions and a highly involved government in Botswana is similar to the parallels made in this paper of China's successes. Unfortunately, not all countries have economic or politicial institutions in place.
Not all hope is lost however...I recently read an article on CNN about agricultural sector advancement/expansion. The presidents of Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi are meeting with Calestous Juma of Harvard regarding the future of Africa in agricultural exports. Reading Ravollion's article gave a fresh perspective and it is definitely valuable because it examines the importance of the agricultural sector in Africa that could help stimulate economic growth in the future.
Although there is little doubt that sub-Saharan Africa can take pointers from China’s developmental trajectory, namely in focusing on agricultural development as a means to decrease poverty and inequality measures, I am more skeptical than are the authors of the article about the efficacy of projecting China’s reforms on the sub-Sahara African economy at large. Firstly, sub-Saharan Africa is delineated by more than thirty countries, many of which have conflicting interests and/or internal conflicts that would make the author’s “internal market integration” extremely difficult to achieve. Moreover, the authors posit that China’s rural reforms were initiated as a response to a crisis. Is “crisis” necessary to begin restructuring, and if so, doesn’t the majority of Africa’s widely diverse population living in poverty, many in extreme poverty, constitute a crisis? I just think that the events precipitating China’s agricultural reform policies differ so much from today’s Africa, that I question how much of China’s policies are practically applicable. For example, Africa cannot reallocate land among the population as China did, and the human capital endowments of Chinese workers were much higher than those of rural farmers in Africa today. Additionally, African farmland faces challenges quite different than China. A blanket policy prescription will definitely fall short of achievement of growth. Agricultural growth undoubtedly plays an important role in poverty and inequality reduction in Africa as in China, but the mechanisms through which such agricultural growth is achieved will most likely prove to be different.
ReplyDeleteTo be frank, while the article did bring up many valid points about agricultural surpluses and the role state-led development played in China’s development, it left me more questions than it provided answers for. Thinking about development economics (as I understand it and have learned so far this term), the fact that I was left with more questions may be an indication of a “good” article.
ReplyDeleteOne factor I kept thinking about was the scale of agricultural production. The article credits the HRS with providing incentives for farmers to grow beyond what state collection quotas required from them. As I understand it, the surplus produced would depend on the efficiency of agriculture or the size of the population engaged in farming. Would population levels engaged in subsistence agriculture in Africa be large enough (or at least comparable to China’s) to produce enough surpluses to provide for economic growth? Or could capital be used to make agriculture efficient enough to produce large surpluses. The article also made light of China’s better integrated markets and noted that African countries face much greater challenges moving goods between regions, cities, population centers and transport hubs. Wouldn’t these barriers also pose a great challenge to Africa following China’s lead by developing agricultural surpluses as a precursor to economic development?
I also had a question about agricultural surpluses in general. If I remember correctly, the paper on conditional cash transfers concluded that much of the extra income received by families went towards purchasing more food and nutritional intake. What’s to say that extra agricultural surplus won’t go to families’ food needs? That is not meant to be a criticism of using agricultural surplus for consumption, but is actually a question that I was hoping to gain some insight into. What economic structures or incentives can both help feed families and leave enough agricultural surpluses for sale/export/barter and future development?
The part of the paper that stood out to me was the section on the Communist Party’s 11th Congress in China where an ideological shift was made to the idea that “public policy should be based on evidence…the intellectual approach of seeking truth from facts.” This seems like such a logical and obvious policy to employ, however it is not always practiced. In China, this method was finally embraced and research centers were put together to test certain policies on small scales at first and then the successful policies would be used on larger scales and the unsuccessful ones were scrapped. China’s systematic and logical approach to growth is what keeps China continually growing. In the United States however, it seems as if there is an unfortunate shift towards policies that are backed only by the rhetoric of politicians while studies done by scientists and economists are often ignored in favor of what is politically most appealing. Politicians and their followers are too quick to embrace ideologies that are too broad in their claims. For example, people who claim all government spending is bad and hurts the economy often fail to break down government spending into different types and determine which are beneficial and which are indeed harmful based on research and academic studies. China grew into a giant in the world economy by instituting reforms based on research and the United States must not stray from that method of success.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the article brings up several interesting points about possible examples for African development, especially in the agricultural sector. China has undoubtedly made strides in economic development and growth at an almost unprecedented rate. However, as others have noted the historical and demographic histories as well as the organizational realities of the two regions are entirely different. China, although an extremely large country, and therefore difficult to administer efficiently, is far more ethnically homogeneous than sub-Saharan Africa. Even if all of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa opted to form a trade union, tribal differences and a history of violence still stand between them.
ReplyDeleteAIDS prevalence is another key difference in examining development policy between the two countries. As the authors point out, the Chinese work force just before the major economic take-off, was fairly well-educated, while the average population in sub-Saharan Africa does not have high enrollment or literacy rates. Until the major health crisis which is killing off a high percentage of the working age population in many of these states can be solved, policies focusing on agricultural employment and development will not be as effective.
China's history of communism also created strong central institutions and a large bureaucracy, allowing for the implementation of land redistribution and development policies. In contrast, institutions in sub-Saharan Africa are often notoriously weak and corrupt, making effective implementation and administration almost impossible, especially without foreign aid and oversight.
As others have mentioned previously, poverty alleviation policies in Africa will differ significantly from that of China. However, I do buy the argument that Ravallion makes. It’s somewhat along the lines of what Dani Rodrik proposed in his Growth Strategies paper in the sense that growth strategies cannot be implemented in the same way for all countries/continents. I think Ravallion makes it clear that Africa has specific constraints – higher inequality, higher dependency rates, and lower population density – that China did not face.
ReplyDeleteRavallion’s recommendations for Africa after outlining how China succeeded in poverty alleviation aligned with some of the material from the textbook. For example, he proposed that immediate agricultural and rural reform in Africa would help replicated China’s long run success. He also noted that it’s problematic, because many LDCs choose instead to ignore rural labor or to try to jumpstart their economy by creating capital intensive manufacturing sectors. The modern-sector enrichment growth typology depicts that this behavior only increases inequality.
I had a question though, in the ‘Understanding China’s (uneven) Progress…’ where Ravallion mentions that it wasn’t a trade expansion per se, but ‘overall development policies’ that contributed to China’s poverty reduction. Specifically, manufacturing sectors in these areas were more labor intensive and there was greater external trade. Why is that the case? If I understand correctly, Ravallion suggests that China first made improvements in the agricultural sector – and it was this initial investment that enabled them to create a manufacturing sector and attract the necessary labor (which required rudimentary education provided in the rural sector).
This works very well in China’s poverty reduction goals because of the hukou system. There was already a 1% poverty rate (less than $1/day) in the cities, and 22% in rural China. But because relocating is limited, there would not be an opportunity for a lot of unemployment/large informal sector as predicted in the rural-urban migration model. I’m curious if this method would be even more effective in SSA. 51% live on less than $1/day in the rural sector, but 40% in the urban areas also live on less than $1/day. With the ratio being about equal, perhaps it would make sense to invest heavily in agricultural reform, thus reducing poverty in the rural sector and creating a greater incentive for people to stay on the farms instead of going to the city (with already high poverty rates) in hopes of a better job.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs many others have pointed out, Africa certainly faces different constraints than China did before it decreasing its poverty rate. It the governmental structure that strikes me as most problematic when attempting to implement China’s poverty-reduction plan to African countries. Ravallion teaches two key lessons regarding China’s success against poverty. The first focuses on increased small-scale agriculture productivity. The second highlights the need for strong leadership and competent public administration within the government. Here lies the critical difference. As Rodrik stressed, institutions matter. China already had a strong (perhaps too strong) central government united under Communism. Africa, on the other hand, is a spattering of 48 nations, many whose borders were drawn by colonizers years ago, dividing some tribes and pushing others into closer proximity with each other. Countries have been plagued by civil wars, ruled by incompetent and corrupt leaders, and ravaged by disease, especially HIV/AIDS. Though Africa has made great progress in recent years, it is still a collection of countries with loose ties to each other and populations sparsely distributed as opposed to one giant country made of a high-density homogeneous population. China may serve as an “economic role model” for the continent, but in order for Ravallion’s idea to become reality, Africa must make substantial progress in establishing legitimate and effective governments that cooperate with each other, build the necessary public infrastructure, and implement changes in economic policies. The current structure of Africa is too decentralized to form a united front on poverty reduction measures as China did.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a few of the comments above which note the worlds sometimes ignorant grouping of "Africa" as a cohesive unit. In fact it is 54 countries most of which were determined by the borders of western colonies. The shear number of language barriers which must be crossed in order to impliment any policy, good or bad, is one example of a hinderence which China did not necessarily have. The article does finally make the distinction between the African continent and the country of China, however, the distinction is not clearly stated in the paper. The African Union is about as close as the continent gets to cohesion, and anyone who know about the AU can agree it lacks to much to be effective.
ReplyDeleteHowever, regardless of the potential for continent-wide successful implimentation of pro-poor policies, I agree generally with the conclusions that institutional structure is necessary for anything to work, and that poverty reducing growth must begin in the agricultural sector. The paper discussed the abundance of land and low population densities across the continent relative to China. However, many countries in Africa are known for land inequality. This means there is a great potential for land reform, and that if done correctly, could have profound impacts on development.
I would like to note that for the development in China to occur, I am not so sure it would have been possible in a democratic state, albeit that most non-democratic governments in Africa are authoritarian. However, I still think that politically, there will certainly be trouble in promoting pro-poor policies in a democracy. Corruption may be just to great in most African democracies to overcome the inequality between those with ecomomic power to influence politicians and the rural poor. The simple fact that infrastructure is not sufficient creates a disconnect between the lower class and the elites.
I do recognize the potential for change in Africa, particularly in the area of poverty and inequality reduction. However, I do believe the paper grossly underestimates the task. It will not require a single push for development in Africa, but 54 individual pushes for development while simultaneously promoting African intercontinental cohesion and diplomacy to promote trade and peace.
Following China's massive development efforts, everyone seems to be attempting to figure out the magic formula in order to recreate this developmental overhaul. However, while I admittedly do not know a lot about this subject, it seems that China was a very specific case and this sort of development could never be recreated in another country with fewer regulations. That being said, there is a lot to learn from China and although the exact Chinese policies may not work in sub-Saharan Africa, their themes and ideas can be studied and perhaps implemented. Government stability and power seems to be a key point in the development of China. Unfortunately, SSA is made up of many countries and lacks the homogeneity of China. This creates the main problem in my mind because, as the article points out, policies cannot be implemented without a strong and unified government. Additionally, bad policies must be abandoned and good policies must be encouraged. This is not occurring in Africa, where the poor have little empowerment and thus no voice in the government. Fixing this problem could be the key in overall development.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Scott that the article left me with many questions unanswered. But one of the main lessons I got from it was that African policy would be much harder to implement due to the fact that it is comprised of 48 different countries. China is one country that could establish one centralized government instead of having 48 political spectrums. Not to mention the cultures of both countries vary extremely differently based on their institutions and values. There are ideas we can build from that were initiated in China but like Ravallion said, policy is independent based on the turn of events and how countries react in various situations. China should provide foreign direct investment to Africa under certain stipulations that they decide on to enforce policies in Africa. For instance, China only invests if they set up a new health care system that China agrees would be beneficial and successful. Africa is already so far behind that it will take baby steps or major altering events to progress the continent. It is important to not just focus on China but other countries would have at one point in time alleviated poverty and bring all those policies together and pick and choose which ones may work out. It's not an easy process but one that needs to be viewed from multiple sides before any decisions are made.
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement with everyone who says that SSA cannot be treated as homogeneous, and thus a whole new level of constraints are added. However, we can think about what Professor Casey has told us throughout the term--models are important but not everything. So, the example of China is important for SSA to look at, but not the be all to end all. In looking at China, the institutions in Africa can borrow some of the ideas, but perhaps look to see how they would best mold to SSA. It would likely be beneficial to look at Vietnam and other success stories to compile the best examples possible.
ReplyDeleteSomething that stuck out to me in this article was the short-term agricultural and rural development that the authors said needed to take place for their to be successful poverty reduction. Reading this, I remembered how earlier this term we discussed a downfall of building the modern, urban sector alone: there will not be enough jobs, and some people will be better off on the farm where they were at least self-sustaining. Thus, it might be better for SSA, like China, to really focus on the agricultural sector to help those people, and slowly move to the modern sector to increase employment and welfare there.
While I do agree with most of you in saying that Africa should not be counted, this article got me thinking that "what if it could be?". I thought that the article did a great job in investigating China and WHY they have seen the economic success that they have. Ravallion's message to Africa seems to be:
ReplyDelete"A partial list would include widespread access to sound basic education and health care, lower dependency rates through lower fertility, greater internal market integration, and greater external openness to foreign investment and trade, consistent with a country’s comparative advantage. "
These certainly did work for China, but I think the ultimate questions is if they would work for Africa. It seems that it would be much harder to have a successful program such as this when there is no central government. However, I think that each country could do their part in attempting to reach these goals and that along with tremendous coordination africa could see come economic success. One other question is that how do the African countries that are plagued with malaria fit in? One is civil war? The goals seem much harder to me when you think about those.
Also, here is an article on China's Township Village Enterprises.
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.wlu.edu/stable/765136
Although the decrease in China's absolute poverty has been attributed to trade expansion and foreign direct investment (albeit after a large reduction of poverty), transplanting similar policy reforms to Sub-Saharan Africa is no guarantee of the same results. From Development Econ we know that successful policies and theories cannot be simply be implemented in other contexts without possible implications.
ReplyDeleteAfrica, described as "strife-torn" and with "internal upheavals," is ethnically and geographically diverse, so there are many different areas to consider that may have varying degrees of instability. Similar to China, Africa could see geographical discrepancies in poverty reduction, much like China. Furthermore, Africa has a higher growth rate than China due to increased fertility, a result of higher death rates due to HIV/AIDS and the desire (possible overcompensation) for more children to survive. Because Africa is so expansive and there is a lower population density compared to China, more infrastructure is needed to further develop the country, which will rack up significant costs. Lastly, large increases in manufacturing exports is a characteristic of China's economy, yet Africa is mostly an agricultural economy with small-scale manufacturing. It is clear that what has worked in China cannot simply be transplanted in Africa because of a number of economic, ethnic, and geographic differences.
I think the key words here are "strong state institutions." As Ravallion points out, China practically invented strong public administration policies, and after reading what truly got China's reform going, if SSA has any hope at achieving reform by copying China, they must first establish a reliable governmental power structure within the various countries. This will be challenging not only because they have a history of weak public administration, but they are also individual countries with individual nationalities, that will have to sort out a degree of internal problems before moving to an external economic body.
ReplyDeleteConsidering their weaker government infrastructure it might be better for SSA to look at developing a more inclusive (and possibly intrusive) economic bloc similar to how the European Union began. For radical policies such as China's Household Responsibility System to work, there must be effective and somewhat uniform leadership throughout the country to enforce this responsibility, and hold participating households accountable. Regardless of who SSA looks to for inspiration in economic reforms, they will ultimately need to address their governmental power structure first. In addition, there must be some way to include the current SSA elite. For an effective reform they must "have support from the country's elite. It was important here that many of those in power at the center appear to have had a genuine desire to help the country's rural poor."
SSA needs to look at the current leadership of involved countries and figure out if their true intentions are to reach out and help the poor. If not it will be very difficult to mimic the reform policies of China and/or Vietnam.
This article points out many of the problems with attempting to simply take the strategies that had been effective in eradicating extreme poverty in China and applying them to the developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa faces many challenges that China was not necessarily subjected to—first, it is a group of 48 countries, not one country, meaning that there is much less cohesiveness with policy making, economic issues, social interactions, and cultures in general. Furthermore, Sub-Saharan Africa is growing at a tremendously higher rate than China, and due to poor health care, seeing much shorter life spans. This leads to a disproportionate amount of Sub-Saharan Africa’s population falling into the dependent age group, and without a large enough portion of these children maturing into adulthood, Africa will continue to face a lack in human capital, making it ever so much more challenging to pull themselves out of destitution. This, to me, shows that the primary need for Sub-Saharan Africa right now is health care, because without the ability to reach full potential in human capital or simply extending life spans, the efforts to eradicate poverty in this region will be essentially futile. This reminds me of the article we read earlier in the year that discussed how modeling is not always a good strategy because differences mean that a strategy that is effective in one place could end up being disastrous in another, and I think that is a lot of what we are seeing with applying China’s strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily's point. Obviously Africa cannot be directly compared to China because it is not a single unified country. However, there are benefits of looking at the Chinese model. There are similarities between China's past situation and the current situation in Africa. Without a centralized government, Africa cannot implement a country-wide plan like in China, but areas in need should consider modeling growth after that of China's.
ReplyDeleteTwo of the things the paper touches on that are most interesting to me are the impact of disease in Africa and the difference in population distribution. Earlier in the term we talked about the impact of malaria on the economy in Africa. In truth it's not just malaria that has impacted Africa but other diseases like HIV/AIDS for example have had a devastating impact on the lives of many Africans. China has also been impacted by disease but not nearly as much as Africa. Knowing how dramatic an impact malaria can have on development the higher incidence of disease in Africa may have had a significant impact on the lack of development there. This makes me question whether development in Africa will be possible until the hih levels of disease there are remedied.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a lot to add to what the paper said about population distribution but I do think it is an interesting idea. Africa is far more rural than China which makes it harder for infrastructure to reach citizens of African countries. This has certainly had a negative impact on development in Africa. That said many economists beleive development must first occur in the rural agricultural sector before the economy as a whole can grow. With such a high percentage of the country living in highly dispersed rural areas one would think that the government would focus on trying to grow the agricultural economy. I think that the failure to do so speaks to two problems. One is the general instability of governments in Africa adn the other is the influence of western minded economists who preach industrial growth as the best solution without fully understanding the specific problems in African countries.
I agree with a lot of what has been said before. What I find an essential ingredient in understanding the uniqueness and success of the Chinese government’s economic reforms is the immediate realization of the power of the poor to destabilize the whole country. Accordingly, after Mao’s death, the central government’s politburo geared a lot of resources to rural areas and the land-locked West. There is certainly a lot to learn from China’s poverty alleviation and growth measures, but one of the basic pre-conditions for China’s model to have worked so well is the fact that poverty alleviation was the No.1 priority of the Communist Party. Despite all other tremendous obstacles many SSA countries face, pro-poor-policies and the gradual empowerment of farmers can only be generated top-down in countries where the disadvantaged are commonly incapable of forming coherent, powerful institutions to fend for their rights. Curiously, China’s only ruling party that is so often deemed to oppress its people did learn from its mistakes (particularly the Great Leap Forward), at least with regards to the economic side. I believe a pro-poor top-down approach in many SSH countries is highly unlikely at this point in time, but might be the single most effective starting point for sustainable structural changes in their economies. Once this hurdle is taken, I see a lot potential for a more prosperous future of the African continent (Clearly, there are huge disparities between the individual countries. I forgot whether Ravallion defines “Africa”, but I am confident that the North African countries, as well as South Africa are to a large extent excluded from this discussion).
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see whether African governments will show more trust and form better (and more truthful?) bondages with the Chinese government as opposed to its former(?) colonizers’ West. This might occur because China appears to display more similarities with African nations than Western industrialized countries. China is itself still a developing country and more importantly, China does not try to export an ideology or even a political system by trading with Africa. This pragmatic approach might appeal to many African leaders and even authoritarian African rulers might be able to see on the example of China that caring for its poor does not only diminish the benefits of the ruling class, but instead also serves to enhance and sustain the ruling party’s long-term power.
As many others have mentioned above, I don’t think you can overstate the importance of recognizing that Africa is 48 distinct countries, each with differing goals, interests, and methods of governance. Additionally, I really like the conclusion that Joe comes to above when he states the need for not only individual countries pushing for development but also, in combination with this, “African intercontinental cohesion and diplomacy.” I think this cohesion between different African nations will ultimately be essential in allowing African countries that face similar situations and circumstances to share their own success stories against poverty among themselves to further expedite the borrowing of strategies against poverty. Success in a neighboring African country could be more readily borrowed and successfully implemented by another African country than could a strategy that originated and was successful on the other side of the globe. Ultimately, it begins to seem that there are so many stark and important differences between the past starting point for China and the current state of Africa that drawing parallels becomes difficult and extremely generalized. However, I think the paper does an excellent job of recognizing the differing constraints between the two and conceding that, while the lessons of focusing on agricultural development and the role of strong leadership and government are general, they are ultimately necessary as well. These general lessons allow for the many differing countries of Africa to personalize these economic goals to their own cultures and circumstances. However, I think the argument could also certainly be made that the most valuable component to looking to other success stories for guidance is not looking at generalizations but instead focusing specifically on how the end product was made into reality.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the China comparison, I find the relationship between South Korea and Africa's most developed country, Ghana. The economies of Ghana and South Korea strongly resembled each other in the early 1960’s. They both had a newly formed democracy, approximately the same level of GNP and economic aid, similar export products, comparable divisions within their economy between primary products, manufacturing, and services. Today, the per capita GDP in Ghana is only one-fifteenth that of South Korea. South Korea has transformed from its low levels of development to becoming an industrialized nation with the fourteenth largest economy in the world. During the development decade in the 1960’s, many African leaders believed that Africa could achieve in a few decades what Europe had taken centuries to achieve.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the important variables that is often overlooked is culture which affects the process of development in Africa. The people of China are very different than those in Africa and within the African continent, the people vary significantly as well. The effect of policy implications varies place to place not only on the efficiency of the government, which the article suggests, but also the mindset of the people that are affected by it. I think you can not directly compare the success China or South Korea had to Africa. Yes, agrarian reform would help better the people in Africa, but it would look differently as well. The family structure, work ethic, strength of communities, inequality and attitude towards the government would alter the effect of policy reform country to country. Additionally, from my experience in Ghana, the government will enact programs for change. However, the infrastructure or lack there of hinders the success as well as all of the red tape involved. There is little accountability within the government. In China, their strong government allows for the efficacy of political, economic and social reform.
Another point that is not brought up in the article is the impact of migration. There have been massive movements towards the cities and now a large development of urban poverty that agrarian reform will be unable to fix. At this stage, would it be better to focus reform on industrial infrastructure? or have that be a side effect of advancement in the agricultural sector? Both would eliminate poverty, but Africa needs to decide which pathway would best contribute to larger growth in the future.
ike Ashna, I believe that the largest difficulty in using China's example to help growth in Africa is the fact that SSA is many different countries, while China is just one. The authors addressed this most in their discussion of political institutions, which I absolutely agree are crucial for development. However, when I read the paper, the fact that SSA is made of individual countries brought to mind different difficulties than just problems associated with working with multiple governments. Growth strategies may also be hindered by the fact that African countries have a multitude of different cultures and languages. The fact that there are so many different dialects will certainly impede internal coordination efforts. In addition, the coordination efforts may be further hurt by the fact that the political boundaries are so arbitrary- will people's loyalties be to their state, or tribe, or family? Which cultures place an emphasis on civil cooperation? I was also left wondering how the role of disease will affect growth in SSA. The authors mentioned that HIV/AIDS contributed to Africa's higher dependency ratio, but did not address how its tropical climate makes it a breeding ground for more diseases such as malaria, yellow fever, etc.- obstacles that China did not battle on the same level.
ReplyDeleteThe authors did a good job of alerting the readers to some differences between China and Africa and cautioning against direct applications of Chinese policy to SSA without personalizing them for Africa. However, I'm left wondering what the exact modifications are. If we know the policies have to be altered, what are the alterations that would make the policies work in Africa? The million dollar question...
This article was an interesting analysis, yet I believe Africa's success may not be brought about by instituting carbon copies of Chinese development problems. The underlying differences of Chinese poverty and African poverty seem too great. Chinese finance and investment will have a greater payout than ideas and models within africa. The african preferences and indifference sets will be substantially different than those of the Chinese, so implementing economic policies may not have the same success in a foreign continent. Also, Chinese wealth has increased significantly, but there is still an extreme impoverished community, but as Africa develops, they need to attempt to eliminate the massive disparities. TWealth disparity is existent in essentially all cultures, but ensuring that the middle class is large and that the extreme poor situations are not as bad as before should be an essential goal for Chinese development.
ReplyDeleteRavillion's paper was an interesting juxtaposition of China and Africa. Despite its impressive economic growth rate, I never considered China to be somewhat of a "model" for Africa. This was primarily due to my negative view of the Communist Party; however, I quickly learned that this same party implemented quasi, free market reforms than "empowered" the lower, mainly agrarian class. The Household Responsibility System seemed to be the fundamental spark that jump-started China's impressive growth.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Ravillion was apt in adding that China's history and process of development is by no means perfect, not should be implemented in China. He listed three main distinctions/problems that separate Africa from China. I thought the population density factor was interesting. Normally, I would have assumed it be the opposite case--that more land meant more resources per person (ie. not Bangladesh) . However, the lack of infrastructure and mobility makes perfect sense as to why a low population density can limit growth and poverty reduction.
Like many others in the class, I initially was skeptical of the comparison, because China is one country with a fairly homogenous populous, while Africa is a continent with many different countries and ethnicities. But I feel that Ravallion adequately addressed this concern by stating that he is merely using select factors and policies in that China that has led them out of poverty. While it is highly unlikely that a country such as Sudan will implement restructuring programs like HRS, it is important for policy makers in Africa and multinational organizations to understand the significance of reform in the primary sector.