This was a news item a few weeks ago, but I haven't heard any updates since. Basically a team of US geologists, aided by Pentagon officials and guided by Soviet maps guarded for decades by Afghan geologists, have identified extensive mineral deposits in Afghanistan. The minerals include traditional things like iron and copper, but what seems the most exciting to people is the lithium deposits. Lithium is used in batteries for electronic devices, and there exist only a few major deposits in the world (much of the world's lithium is in Bolivia, which does not seem to be an eager participant in foreign-led mining ventures).
Aside from the obvious and justified suspicions that arise when an occupying military power states a desire to develop mining operations to help the occupied country, this story brings up a lot of topics I've been thinking about in the Colombian context. Despite the predictions of a new era of national prosperity that always seem to accompany major mineral finds, mining rarely leads to real development and improvement in well-being for most people. We in Colombia are expanding our mining sector, and it looks good for our macroeconomic numbers, but the sector creates little employment, lots of environmental damage, and lots of concentration of wealth (which in Colombia often goes hand-in-hand with the strengthening of death squads that terrorize the common folk). In countries like Nigeria these trends are even more extreme and ugly.
A rare exception to this trend is Chile, where for a long time foreign-owned copper and nitrate mines did likewise cause more misery than prosperity for the people. But over the course of the 20th century Chile claimed and maintained most of the control over its mines, such that today I would say that Chile's mines actually benefit Chileans. The Chilean case though is that striking exception among countries with mining-based economies. I can't imagine how a poor, corrupt society like Afghanistan could really turn the exploitation of its mineral wealth by foreign companies to the country's own advantage.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Bangladeshis want a higher wage
I ran across this news item regarding widespread strikes among Bangladeshi garment workers (see the second blurb, below the Pakistan item). It seems the garment workers want a minimum wage increase from under a dollar a day to just under $3US a day. And the government and the police are offering their services to private factory owners to control the unruly workers. This gives the lie to people like Jeffrey Sachs who see sweatshop workers as docile proto-bourgeois who are just thrilled to be earning a cash wage and driving their country's economic growth.
Hey, maybe if the Bangladeshis succeed in raising their minimum wage, Haiti will be in a better position to attract sweatshop investors!
Hey, maybe if the Bangladeshis succeed in raising their minimum wage, Haiti will be in a better position to attract sweatshop investors!
An honest look at poverty and economy in Colombia
This is an article warning the incoming government in Colombia not to fall into the same simple thinking of the old government. The article criticizes Colombian economic policy on a number of fronts. As a sort of aside it criticizes the Familias en Accion program instituted under the last government. This program is essentially a charity hand-out to poor families instead of a job-creation program (and it's been somewhat politicized to boot, but the article doesn't touch on that).
But the article's main point is to add some nuance to the view that economic growth creates employment and reduces poverty, because growth does not always lead to these things. The author gives the very good example that in recent years Colombia's GNP has often grown or shrunken as a result of international oil or mineral prices. This type of growth doesn't create employment, because the same amount of resources are being extracted, hence requiring the same number of workers. It's just that the higher world prices mean that company owners are getting more for the same product. Likewise the article points out that economic growth that concentrates wealth in a few hands doesn't decrease poverty unless there are effective measures for redistribution. Finally, improving investor confidence isn't necessarily a desirable goal in itself, either. For example, investment in more oil pipelines doesn't create a lot of employment. If certain investments don't lead to more jobs and less poverty, then the new government would be well-advised to avoid them. The article advises that the types of investment and growth the government should be promoting if its serious about job creation and poverty reduction are in agriculture and industry.
I want to add a wrinkle to the themes touched on by the article. I have noticed during the presidential campaigns that various candidates, in particular the final two contenders and the eventual winner, have focused on "formalization". This term refers to the drawing of informal workers into the formal economy. Such a measure would have a lot of positive aspects. People like market women, recyclers, street venders, etc. operate mainly in the informal economy, which means they neither pay taxes nor receive certain government benefits like pensions. Bringing them into the formal economy would improve the quality of life of these independent businesspeople and offer them access to credit and services to expand and improve their enterprises, all while bringing money to State coffers and regulating the safety and quality of the products and services offered in Colombia. These are all good reasons to promote formalization.
But many politicians also include formalization as part of their job creation plans. This is either naive or deceptive on their parts. Formally counting a heretofore informal job is a way to increase official employment numbers, but it is not a creation of jobs. The people working in the informal sector are already fully employed and contribute to the Colombian economy and job market. Bringing them into the formal sector makes them more visible, but they exist even before they are formalized. Proposing formalization as a way to create jobs implies that informal jobs are illegitimate, inferior, or even nonexistent, while at the same time playing a shell game to make it look as if the government has aided employment.
But the article's main point is to add some nuance to the view that economic growth creates employment and reduces poverty, because growth does not always lead to these things. The author gives the very good example that in recent years Colombia's GNP has often grown or shrunken as a result of international oil or mineral prices. This type of growth doesn't create employment, because the same amount of resources are being extracted, hence requiring the same number of workers. It's just that the higher world prices mean that company owners are getting more for the same product. Likewise the article points out that economic growth that concentrates wealth in a few hands doesn't decrease poverty unless there are effective measures for redistribution. Finally, improving investor confidence isn't necessarily a desirable goal in itself, either. For example, investment in more oil pipelines doesn't create a lot of employment. If certain investments don't lead to more jobs and less poverty, then the new government would be well-advised to avoid them. The article advises that the types of investment and growth the government should be promoting if its serious about job creation and poverty reduction are in agriculture and industry.
I want to add a wrinkle to the themes touched on by the article. I have noticed during the presidential campaigns that various candidates, in particular the final two contenders and the eventual winner, have focused on "formalization". This term refers to the drawing of informal workers into the formal economy. Such a measure would have a lot of positive aspects. People like market women, recyclers, street venders, etc. operate mainly in the informal economy, which means they neither pay taxes nor receive certain government benefits like pensions. Bringing them into the formal economy would improve the quality of life of these independent businesspeople and offer them access to credit and services to expand and improve their enterprises, all while bringing money to State coffers and regulating the safety and quality of the products and services offered in Colombia. These are all good reasons to promote formalization.
But many politicians also include formalization as part of their job creation plans. This is either naive or deceptive on their parts. Formally counting a heretofore informal job is a way to increase official employment numbers, but it is not a creation of jobs. The people working in the informal sector are already fully employed and contribute to the Colombian economy and job market. Bringing them into the formal sector makes them more visible, but they exist even before they are formalized. Proposing formalization as a way to create jobs implies that informal jobs are illegitimate, inferior, or even nonexistent, while at the same time playing a shell game to make it look as if the government has aided employment.
Child labor
This is another Prensa Rural article, on child labor. It cites that 215 million children in the world work, 70% of these in agriculture. The author focuses on the case of the US, where many children are employed as migrant laborers in dangerous jobs involving heavy machinery and toxic agricultural chemicals.
The article correctly differentiates illegal, immoral child labor from a child's helping out his family with planting or other chores in his or her free time. As I understand it, children's work on the farm is not considered child labor if it doesn't take them away from school or play. Since there's no centralized, government-monitored play time in most countries, effectively child labor is defined as when a child works instead of going to school (or if a child works in hazardous conditions). I think this is a fair definition, because it's in fact a good thing, an educational and positive experience, when children help their family in the family business, as long as this help doesn't come at the expense of the child's health or education.
Given this, I often worry when Colombian sources discuss our state, Boyaca, as having high rates of child labor. I know that there do exist legitimate complaints of child labor, like in our neighborhood parking lot where the live-in attendant often has to work at another job, so her daughter misses school to tend the lot. But I also think that there are many examples in our state where children help their families with farm chores, while still attending school full-time (in other cases children don't attend school, but that is sometimes a shortcoming of the State for not providing a public school in a local area). I wouldn't want the healthy participation of children in their parents' farms and small businesses (harvesting potatoes, weighing vegetables for sale, shelling peas, etc.) to be impaired by well-intentioned laws designed by urbanites that don't understand the nature of a provincial family farm or business.
Anyway, I want to reiterate that this post is not an endorsement of child labor, and I'm sure that the majority of the 215 million cited child laborers in the world are indeed in situations that are not appropriate for children. But I wanted to reiterate the difference between child participation in the economic life of a family, which is not always bad, and child labor, which is always inappropriate and illegal.
The article correctly differentiates illegal, immoral child labor from a child's helping out his family with planting or other chores in his or her free time. As I understand it, children's work on the farm is not considered child labor if it doesn't take them away from school or play. Since there's no centralized, government-monitored play time in most countries, effectively child labor is defined as when a child works instead of going to school (or if a child works in hazardous conditions). I think this is a fair definition, because it's in fact a good thing, an educational and positive experience, when children help their family in the family business, as long as this help doesn't come at the expense of the child's health or education.
Given this, I often worry when Colombian sources discuss our state, Boyaca, as having high rates of child labor. I know that there do exist legitimate complaints of child labor, like in our neighborhood parking lot where the live-in attendant often has to work at another job, so her daughter misses school to tend the lot. But I also think that there are many examples in our state where children help their families with farm chores, while still attending school full-time (in other cases children don't attend school, but that is sometimes a shortcoming of the State for not providing a public school in a local area). I wouldn't want the healthy participation of children in their parents' farms and small businesses (harvesting potatoes, weighing vegetables for sale, shelling peas, etc.) to be impaired by well-intentioned laws designed by urbanites that don't understand the nature of a provincial family farm or business.
Anyway, I want to reiterate that this post is not an endorsement of child labor, and I'm sure that the majority of the 215 million cited child laborers in the world are indeed in situations that are not appropriate for children. But I wanted to reiterate the difference between child participation in the economic life of a family, which is not always bad, and child labor, which is always inappropriate and illegal.
Colombian thoughts on cocaine
Here is an article from the always great Prensa Rural about the ecological effects of cocaine production. The article points out that cocaine use does not seem to be going away in the world, certainly not in Europe, where its consumption has risen lately, and not in the US, where abuse rates remain more or less stable. The author suggests that perhaps the prevalence of cocaine use could be diminished by "de-glamourizing" it, as governments and activists have done with certain success in the case of tobacco. But even this strategy seems not to be too effective for cocaine, as shown by the lack of success of a Colombian-funded ad campaign in Europe, in which the viewer is shown images of once-beautiful rainforest destroyed, and reminded that for every gram of cocaine consumed, about forty square feet of rainforest are chopped down.
So in light of the ineffectiveness of such consciousness-raising campaigns to reduce either demand for cocaine or the ecological harm done by cocaine cultivation, the article proposes that the major cocaine-producing countries (Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia) implement laws to encourage a cleaner, more responsible production of the drug. I proposed a similar idea some months ago in my article on greener production of cocaine. I even went a step further to propose a Fair Trade supply chain for cocaine, which would also take into account the social ills created by standard cocaine production. Ultimately though the problem is that if a product is illegal, as is the case for cocaine, it is difficult to regulate the way it is produced. Illicit production is by definition beyond the control of government, and governments are afraid that by recognizing and regulating an illegal trend, they would be implicitly legitimizing it.
So in light of the ineffectiveness of such consciousness-raising campaigns to reduce either demand for cocaine or the ecological harm done by cocaine cultivation, the article proposes that the major cocaine-producing countries (Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia) implement laws to encourage a cleaner, more responsible production of the drug. I proposed a similar idea some months ago in my article on greener production of cocaine. I even went a step further to propose a Fair Trade supply chain for cocaine, which would also take into account the social ills created by standard cocaine production. Ultimately though the problem is that if a product is illegal, as is the case for cocaine, it is difficult to regulate the way it is produced. Illicit production is by definition beyond the control of government, and governments are afraid that by recognizing and regulating an illegal trend, they would be implicitly legitimizing it.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Sorting out food security initiatives
Here is a rare useful insight from the Farming First blog. It is a document detailing the major food security initiatives in the world today. It is very opportune, because especially after the global food crisis of 2008 there has been a blossoming of food security initiatives. This document helps to sort them all out, and to see where they differ and where they overlap.
Cyber bullying
Here's a NYT article on cyberbullying in schools. As often happens with the NYT, I don't know how relevant and widespread this phenomenon is, because the NYT tends to focus on trends in well-heeled, East Coast social circles. But I am not at all looking forward to dealing with this when my own kid is of grammar-school age. Here in Colombia kids have access to cellphones, internet, etc., but the whole cyber-bullying thing seems not to be as much of an issue. Who knows what the situation will be in ten years or so, here or in the US. I think my natural impulse would be to tell my kid to kick the ass of anyone who's bullying him or her. I don't believe in violence, but like Gandhi, I believe in resistance over passivity, even if that resistance has to be violent!
Legal marijuana
This is an interesting New York Times article about medical marijuana in Colorado. It's a very interesting exploration of what happens when a heretofore illegal drug is made legal. New business models arise, new regulations, new opportunities, new difficulties. It's an interesting real-world precedent for some of my ideas about legalizing coca, cocaine, and coca farms here in Colombia.
I woefully note that it seems farmers will not share in the legal marijuana bonanza in Colorado, at least not for now. Much of the money to be made will go to legal marijuana dispensaries, which seem to be their own major suppliers (though the article details the difficulties they face in making a profit). And the easiest money to be made in Colorado right now, according to the article, is for the doctors that write out prescriptions for medical marijuana. Aside from my questions as to the Hippocratic soundness of the doctor's office described in the article, I can't help but remark that it is those in charge of paperwork and bureaucracy (in this case the doctors with the legal authority to write marijuana prescriptions) that can capture the lion's share of profit, at least in the early days of any newly-opened market opportunity.
I woefully note that it seems farmers will not share in the legal marijuana bonanza in Colorado, at least not for now. Much of the money to be made will go to legal marijuana dispensaries, which seem to be their own major suppliers (though the article details the difficulties they face in making a profit). And the easiest money to be made in Colorado right now, according to the article, is for the doctors that write out prescriptions for medical marijuana. Aside from my questions as to the Hippocratic soundness of the doctor's office described in the article, I can't help but remark that it is those in charge of paperwork and bureaucracy (in this case the doctors with the legal authority to write marijuana prescriptions) that can capture the lion's share of profit, at least in the early days of any newly-opened market opportunity.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Almost-organic milk
I recently ran across this article on organic milk and animal welfare. A point the article makes that I had known but not thought about in-depth is that if a certified-organic dairy cow gets a bacterial infection, the farmer can use antibiotics on that cow, but she can never thereafter be classed as an organic animal. That creates a difficult situation for farmers, who must either postpone treatment, sell the cow after treatment, or be stuck with a cow they can no longer milk with the rest of the herd.
So this gave me an idea of an almost-organic dairy. It would be comprised of cows purchased from organic farmers after treatment with antibiotics for some ailment. The management of this herd would be organic (free of chemicals, antibiotics, and hormones, mainly grass-fed, etc.), but because the cows would be disqualified from the present USDA certification system, the milk could not be sold with an official organic label. If the almost-organic dairy farmer were a savvy marketer, or especially if he sold directly to consumers, he could explain that his production is chemical-free and follows all the organic guidelines, with the only difference being that his cows have been shut out of the organic certification system. Such a farmer could even ask for a price premium above the organic price because he is providing what could be considered public services. His dairy would be providing a home for rejected cows, and providing organic farmers with a more humane, profitable way to run their operation.
This would be a way to fill a market niche, lessen waste and suffering in the organic sector, and circumvent organic regulations that, while well-intentioned, are sometimes counterproductive. Any aspiring almost-organic dairy farmers out there?
So this gave me an idea of an almost-organic dairy. It would be comprised of cows purchased from organic farmers after treatment with antibiotics for some ailment. The management of this herd would be organic (free of chemicals, antibiotics, and hormones, mainly grass-fed, etc.), but because the cows would be disqualified from the present USDA certification system, the milk could not be sold with an official organic label. If the almost-organic dairy farmer were a savvy marketer, or especially if he sold directly to consumers, he could explain that his production is chemical-free and follows all the organic guidelines, with the only difference being that his cows have been shut out of the organic certification system. Such a farmer could even ask for a price premium above the organic price because he is providing what could be considered public services. His dairy would be providing a home for rejected cows, and providing organic farmers with a more humane, profitable way to run their operation.
This would be a way to fill a market niche, lessen waste and suffering in the organic sector, and circumvent organic regulations that, while well-intentioned, are sometimes counterproductive. Any aspiring almost-organic dairy farmers out there?
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
More judicial news from Colombia
This is a translation of the article "Es doloroso que una juez que ha resuelto un caso deba abandonar el país" in yesterday's Espectador newspaper.
"It's a shame that a judge who's resolved a case should have to leave the country"
The statement made by the president, Alvaro Uribe, in favor of colonel Alfonso Plazas Vega, condemned to 30 years in prison for the disappearance of 11 people in 1985 during the taking of the Palace of Justice, put in risk the judge who made the ruling. She has left the country due to threats made against her, according to the victims' spokesman, Jorge Molano.
In an interview with the Efe news agency, Molano confirmed that judge Maria Stella Jara has left Colombia due to a lack of safety, and also that she released an order for the condemned, retired colonel Alfonso Plazas Vega, to present himself in prison immediately. This order has not yet been obeyed.
"The judge had to leave the country for security reasons; there were requirements for protective measures to be taken by the Colombian government, but these were not carried out as proposed," claims the spokesman. On top of this, "the statements of present Alvaro Uribe, in which he considers excessive the rulings of the Justice branch, have increased the risk to the judge," insisted Molano.
The lawyer was referring to the declarations made by Uribe just after learning of the sentence two weeks ago, when he signaled that the sentence was "creating a panorama of judicial insecurity that goes against the maintenance of public order in Colombia." The president also demanded "impartial justice" for the armed forces and advocated in support of colonel Plazas Vega, in favor of a special law for his protection.
For Molano, "The government has decided to enter in the rupture of Constitutional order and to break with the principle of independent Justice in Colombia," for which "the rule of law is frankly weakened and discredited." These facts "call into question the possibility that in Colombia there may exist an independent and impartial administration of justice." Molano added that, "The administration of justice in these circumstances comes from [the executive branch] and from private actors."
According to the lawyer, "The fact that public servants and their rulings are publicly attacked is a way of violating the direction of the [different branches of] power." Furthermore, he claims, "It is painful for Colombia and for the world that a judge who has resolved a case in which justice was practically exterminated should have to leave the country only because there was no collective desire to carry out the resolutions of the Interamerican Commission of Human Rights (CIDH) and of the United Nations."
Molano alluded thus to the security measures requested by the CIDH and to the warning of the UN that Lara was in danger. "It leaves us with a bitter taste because in Colombia the possibility of justice is diminishing, because the government has decided not to protect those who work for justice," insisted the spokesman for the family members of those who disappeared during the military occupation of the Palace of Justice to repel a capture by the M-19 guerrilla group.
In that action, which left more than 100 dead in two days, eleven people disappeared after leaving the Palace alive. They were a mix of Justice Palace employees and guerrilla fighters. 25 years later the party responsible for this crime has been determined: coronel Plazas Vega.
Molano, who admitted that he too is under threat, for which he travels with a bodyguard and in an armored vehicle, called Lara's sentence "historic" and is profoundly sorry that she has had to leave Colombia due to the threats launched against her and her son. In his opinion, this ruling "vindicates the right to truth and justice, which is the first building block for ending impunity."
"It's a shame that a judge who's resolved a case should have to leave the country"
Jorge Molano, spokesman for the victims in the Palace of Justice massacre of 1985, lamented the situation of María Stella Jara, who ruled against Alfonso Plazas
The statement made by the president, Alvaro Uribe, in favor of colonel Alfonso Plazas Vega, condemned to 30 years in prison for the disappearance of 11 people in 1985 during the taking of the Palace of Justice, put in risk the judge who made the ruling. She has left the country due to threats made against her, according to the victims' spokesman, Jorge Molano.
In an interview with the Efe news agency, Molano confirmed that judge Maria Stella Jara has left Colombia due to a lack of safety, and also that she released an order for the condemned, retired colonel Alfonso Plazas Vega, to present himself in prison immediately. This order has not yet been obeyed.
"The judge had to leave the country for security reasons; there were requirements for protective measures to be taken by the Colombian government, but these were not carried out as proposed," claims the spokesman. On top of this, "the statements of present Alvaro Uribe, in which he considers excessive the rulings of the Justice branch, have increased the risk to the judge," insisted Molano.
The lawyer was referring to the declarations made by Uribe just after learning of the sentence two weeks ago, when he signaled that the sentence was "creating a panorama of judicial insecurity that goes against the maintenance of public order in Colombia." The president also demanded "impartial justice" for the armed forces and advocated in support of colonel Plazas Vega, in favor of a special law for his protection.
For Molano, "The government has decided to enter in the rupture of Constitutional order and to break with the principle of independent Justice in Colombia," for which "the rule of law is frankly weakened and discredited." These facts "call into question the possibility that in Colombia there may exist an independent and impartial administration of justice." Molano added that, "The administration of justice in these circumstances comes from [the executive branch] and from private actors."
According to the lawyer, "The fact that public servants and their rulings are publicly attacked is a way of violating the direction of the [different branches of] power." Furthermore, he claims, "It is painful for Colombia and for the world that a judge who has resolved a case in which justice was practically exterminated should have to leave the country only because there was no collective desire to carry out the resolutions of the Interamerican Commission of Human Rights (CIDH) and of the United Nations."
Molano alluded thus to the security measures requested by the CIDH and to the warning of the UN that Lara was in danger. "It leaves us with a bitter taste because in Colombia the possibility of justice is diminishing, because the government has decided not to protect those who work for justice," insisted the spokesman for the family members of those who disappeared during the military occupation of the Palace of Justice to repel a capture by the M-19 guerrilla group.
In that action, which left more than 100 dead in two days, eleven people disappeared after leaving the Palace alive. They were a mix of Justice Palace employees and guerrilla fighters. 25 years later the party responsible for this crime has been determined: coronel Plazas Vega.
Molano, who admitted that he too is under threat, for which he travels with a bodyguard and in an armored vehicle, called Lara's sentence "historic" and is profoundly sorry that she has had to leave Colombia due to the threats launched against her and her son. In his opinion, this ruling "vindicates the right to truth and justice, which is the first building block for ending impunity."
Molano informs that the judge, before leaving Colombia, ordered "the immediate transfer" of general [sic] Plazas Vega to the prison, from the Military Hospital of Bogota, where he is currently admitted. But Molano added that the National Institute for Jails and Penitentiaries (Inpec) "hasn't carried out" the order, despite Molano's insistence that there exist reports from Legal Medicine that confirm that the retired colonel "has no mental or physical illness" and that his stay in the hospital is only an excuse to avoid prison.
"If they don't want to carry out the order we are going to accuse the director of Inpec for crimes of fraud and legal impediment," added the lawyer, who is allowing "a time frame of 24 hours before establishing cause for trial." Inpec sources told Efe that they had not yet received the transfer order for Vegas Plaza [sic], which Molano roundly refuted.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
A discussion on hybridization
I recently read this article on the Haiti Rewired site, a forum for discussing development questions. There was a raging debate regarding the safety and usefulness of hybrid seeds, so I dropped some knowledge. You can read my explanation about hybrid seeds below:
Hi all, I'm new to Haiti Rewired. I don't think any agronomists have weighed in on this thread, so I thought I'd offer some background on hybridization, just so everyone's on the same page.
Illio pointed out that hybridization is a cross between two different varieties of a species, or even between two different species. This is biologically correct, and in that sense all people, as well as all crops we plant, are technically hybrids of their parents.
But in the agricultural context, “hybrid” has a more restricted meaning. Hybrid seed refers to the offspring of two purebred, inbred lines. The process is as follows: from a diverse population of plants (even many plant varieties, which may seem quite homogeneous in appearance, possess a lot of genetic diversity within the population), a breeder selects one plant that has certain traits he or she wants. The breeder then self-pollinates this plant, so that its offspring will only bear the genes of this single parent. But even these offspring will be quite diverse, so when the offspring seeds are planted and reach maturity, the breeder again picks only those plants that have the desired traits, and crosses each plant to itself again. This goes on for various generations, until the breeder is left with a pure line that has the desired traits and consistently produces essentially identical offspring. It is incest to the extreme! And as with incest, these inbred lines tend to have certain drawbacks in terms of strength and yield. So the breeder takes one inbred line, lets say one that germinates well in cold soil, and crosses it with another inbred line, maybe one with resistance to a certain disease. The offspring of this cross (this is what plant breeders refer to as the F1 generation) will be genetically identical to one another, a half-and-half mix of each parent line's alleles. And because they are hybrids and not inbred lines, these F1 offspring have a high yield and are very strong. The problem is that the seeds produced by these plants (the F2 generation) will not be similar to the hybrid plants; they will be a remixing of the traits of the grandparents, and many of them will possess the same weakness and flaws of the grandparents. So if you plant hybrid seed, you harvest its grain, sell it, and buy new seed, because saving grain to plant as seed doesn't give a good result.
I think this is the main issue in the case of the Monsanto donation. Normally Haitian farmers save seed from generation to generation, but if they were to use hybrid seed, they couldn't do this. Any farmer who used hybrid seed this year would be obligated to buy more seed next year. Aside from that, usually hybrid seeds are bred to respond well to ideal cropping conditions—good soil moisture, high fertility, total control of pests and weeds by chemical inputs. Hybrid seeds are great for farmers in Illinois, whose flat land and input-intensive agriculture allow them to provide the ideal environment for crops. But usually these seeds are not so attractive for subsistence farmers. There are even traits of hybrid seed that are inherently undesirable for the Haitian context! For instance, the genetic uniformity of hybrid seeds means that all the plants mature at the same time. This is great if you're harvesting hundreds of acres with a huge mechanical combine, and you can't check to see if one plant is mature while another isn't yet ready to harvest. But for a subsistence farmer with a small field of many different crops, it's often a plus if your corn crop doesn't all mature at the same time. That way you've got a mix of tender sweet corn and mature corn for shelling throughout the latter part of the growing season, and you don't have to harvest everything all at once.
Illio and Rick Davis commented that all the food on farms or at the grocery store is hybridized. That's actually not quite true, at least not in the agronomic sense I've detailed above. In the US for instance, almost all the corn and sorghum planted are hybrid seeds, but almost none of the soy, wheat, fruit, or livestock we consume are hybrids. That said, our livestock (particularly chickens and hogs) is extremely inbred, and so it has some things in common with hybrid seed, both in terms of advantages (high productivity and uniformity) as well as disadvantages (susceptibility to disease, need for lots of industrial inputs). In fact, in the 1980s some well-intentioned Iowa farmers donated elite inbred pigs to Haiti, and most farmers found them totally unsuited to the Haitian climate and farming conditions.
So I wouldn't classify Haitian farmers' rejection of Monsanto's donation as silliness or ingratitude. It's perhaps just that the donation isn't very useful. Ever since the tragic earthquake in Haiti, the concerned among us have been admonishing our relatives that the best gift is money or things that respond to a specific stated need. Despite their good intentions, we tell our Aunt Edna that no one wants her old shoes, or we tell our cousin Dave that his IBM 486 computer from 1994 probably isn't a great help. And if a container of old shoes and IBM 486 computers arrived to a Haitian village, people might even get pissed off and burn them, not out of ingratitude but out of frustration that they're not getting what they need!
Hi all, I'm new to Haiti Rewired. I don't think any agronomists have weighed in on this thread, so I thought I'd offer some background on hybridization, just so everyone's on the same page.
Illio pointed out that hybridization is a cross between two different varieties of a species, or even between two different species. This is biologically correct, and in that sense all people, as well as all crops we plant, are technically hybrids of their parents.
But in the agricultural context, “hybrid” has a more restricted meaning. Hybrid seed refers to the offspring of two purebred, inbred lines. The process is as follows: from a diverse population of plants (even many plant varieties, which may seem quite homogeneous in appearance, possess a lot of genetic diversity within the population), a breeder selects one plant that has certain traits he or she wants. The breeder then self-pollinates this plant, so that its offspring will only bear the genes of this single parent. But even these offspring will be quite diverse, so when the offspring seeds are planted and reach maturity, the breeder again picks only those plants that have the desired traits, and crosses each plant to itself again. This goes on for various generations, until the breeder is left with a pure line that has the desired traits and consistently produces essentially identical offspring. It is incest to the extreme! And as with incest, these inbred lines tend to have certain drawbacks in terms of strength and yield. So the breeder takes one inbred line, lets say one that germinates well in cold soil, and crosses it with another inbred line, maybe one with resistance to a certain disease. The offspring of this cross (this is what plant breeders refer to as the F1 generation) will be genetically identical to one another, a half-and-half mix of each parent line's alleles. And because they are hybrids and not inbred lines, these F1 offspring have a high yield and are very strong. The problem is that the seeds produced by these plants (the F2 generation) will not be similar to the hybrid plants; they will be a remixing of the traits of the grandparents, and many of them will possess the same weakness and flaws of the grandparents. So if you plant hybrid seed, you harvest its grain, sell it, and buy new seed, because saving grain to plant as seed doesn't give a good result.
I think this is the main issue in the case of the Monsanto donation. Normally Haitian farmers save seed from generation to generation, but if they were to use hybrid seed, they couldn't do this. Any farmer who used hybrid seed this year would be obligated to buy more seed next year. Aside from that, usually hybrid seeds are bred to respond well to ideal cropping conditions—good soil moisture, high fertility, total control of pests and weeds by chemical inputs. Hybrid seeds are great for farmers in Illinois, whose flat land and input-intensive agriculture allow them to provide the ideal environment for crops. But usually these seeds are not so attractive for subsistence farmers. There are even traits of hybrid seed that are inherently undesirable for the Haitian context! For instance, the genetic uniformity of hybrid seeds means that all the plants mature at the same time. This is great if you're harvesting hundreds of acres with a huge mechanical combine, and you can't check to see if one plant is mature while another isn't yet ready to harvest. But for a subsistence farmer with a small field of many different crops, it's often a plus if your corn crop doesn't all mature at the same time. That way you've got a mix of tender sweet corn and mature corn for shelling throughout the latter part of the growing season, and you don't have to harvest everything all at once.
Illio and Rick Davis commented that all the food on farms or at the grocery store is hybridized. That's actually not quite true, at least not in the agronomic sense I've detailed above. In the US for instance, almost all the corn and sorghum planted are hybrid seeds, but almost none of the soy, wheat, fruit, or livestock we consume are hybrids. That said, our livestock (particularly chickens and hogs) is extremely inbred, and so it has some things in common with hybrid seed, both in terms of advantages (high productivity and uniformity) as well as disadvantages (susceptibility to disease, need for lots of industrial inputs). In fact, in the 1980s some well-intentioned Iowa farmers donated elite inbred pigs to Haiti, and most farmers found them totally unsuited to the Haitian climate and farming conditions.
So I wouldn't classify Haitian farmers' rejection of Monsanto's donation as silliness or ingratitude. It's perhaps just that the donation isn't very useful. Ever since the tragic earthquake in Haiti, the concerned among us have been admonishing our relatives that the best gift is money or things that respond to a specific stated need. Despite their good intentions, we tell our Aunt Edna that no one wants her old shoes, or we tell our cousin Dave that his IBM 486 computer from 1994 probably isn't a great help. And if a container of old shoes and IBM 486 computers arrived to a Haitian village, people might even get pissed off and burn them, not out of ingratitude but out of frustration that they're not getting what they need!
Monday, June 21, 2010
Notes from La Republica
My wife and I receive a daily business newspaper here in our home in Colombia. The paper is called La Republica. I like the idea of receiving a daily paper and keeping up with the news (though recently I did one of those online carbon footprint surveys and learned that my daily paper consumes a lot of resources).
Almost a year ago my wife and I were selling our handmade jams in a national fair, when a woman approached us with a great offer: a year's subscription to La Republica, plus three free ads for our jams, for a very reasonable price. I eagerly accepted the offer, not knowing that La Republica was a business-focused paper, so I was surprised when we got our first issue. As a business daily it devotes inordinate space to big numbers, sales, etc. The paper gives a lot of coverage to mergers, stock offerings, corporate restructurings, and the like, which really isn't business news but rather finance. However, in a world in which so much of business is not actually production and sales of goods but rather shell games and reshuffling of capital, it seems that many "business dailies" focus mainly on the obscure machinations of high-level financiers.
Anyway, for a long time this daily newspaper went straight from our doorstep to the recycle pile, as neither of us was too interested in what the paper offered: rosy prognoses by the country's oligarchs, thinly-veiled promo pieces for private companies and government ministries, a consistent neoliberal bias that focuses on macroeconomics while not asking the hard questions about equity and real wealth creation. Many of the articles and editorials consist in willfully ignorant pronouncements by economic and political elites, who want to spin our country's inequality and poverty as something other than a total disaster.
But recently I've been reading the paper more. I don't read every article, but usually there are one or two interesting items in there. There are a few common themes that always grab my attention. Rightly or wrongly, I've come to think of myself as a smallscale mover and shaker, always looking for interesting business opportunities that might earn me a living while making my region a better place for its inhabitants. So I'm intrigued by articles on new business opportunities in Colombia, like this one on the growing call center sector and the major obstacles it faces. I fantasize about starting bilingual call centers for consumers in the US and Europe, or running tours for Chinese visitors to our country, or exporting emeralds, or whatever else I read about in the day's paper. Granted, I don't believe that exporting gems or receiving outsourced customer service responsibilities from richer countries are viable long-term strategies to advance Colombia or any other place, but on a small scale such businesses might be good for an innovative entrepreneur and his neighbors.
Another cool recent article is this one on economic and diplomatic relations between China and Colombia. The Chinese ambassador in our country talks about expanding Chinese tourism to Colombia, consumption of our raw materials, and a potential Chinese market for emeralds (of which Colombia is the world's leading producer). I glaze over the meaningless platitudes that abound in these types of articles: "We have many pending projects with Colombia and I hope that in the near future our relations reach new heights...I think every year our links are increasing. I believe we have a very solid base to further strengthen the links between both countries. Colombia is a country with lots of future, and it is a sister territory to China." But I am excited about the possibility of increased Chinese-Colombian commerce, because I think that people like me could learn some Chinese language and culture and position ourselves well as some sort of intercultural business attaches. I also love China's frankness about its insatiable commercial appetite: "Your raw materials are fascinating. You also have a great reserve of oil and especially of coal that interests us. ...Your traditional coal market has always been the US and European countries but with the crisis, these countries have reduced importation of coal from Colombia and for that you are looking for new markets like China."
On that note, I wanted to link to an article from the Atlantic about Chinese investment in Africa. This is a hot topic in development circles, because Chinese commercial development in the continent is surpassing Western development aid in many instances. This article is arguably imbued with the typical prejudices and preoccupations common to US accounts of China's rising presence on the world stage. I think that China's neo-colonial presence in Africa and other developing regions bring up some legitimate questions. Basically it seems that China is the first and only country in recent memory that is making a transition from an underdeveloped, exploited country to a world superpower exploiting underdeveloped countries. It's understandable that the heretofore powerful countries of the world are shaken by China's ascent, and it's right for local people in Africa and other places to be as critical of unethical practices by the Chinese as they are of those by other international companies.
That said, Chinese companies that extract raw materials from Third World countries don't seem that different from any other companies that do so. According to this article and other things I've read, there are large and small operators, companies that make use of more or fewer bribes, companies that contribute in differing degrees to real local development in the places they operate. But the interesting questions are if there truly are substantive differences in how Chinese companies and government relate to developing countries as compared to how the Western powers do so. If so, which model is more attractive for the Africans receiving this foreign interest--the Chinese who invest and extract without imposing their mores on Africans, or the Westerners who invest less but try to ensure a certain level of ethics (perhaps mere window-dressing) both in their own operations and in the governments receiving the money?
As I've noted above, China seems very interested in Colombia as a source of raw materials and a destination for Chinese production. I don't want Colombia to compromise its sovereignty by allowing Chinese firms to operate here with impunity (as I don't like our selling out to Canadian and US mining companies, for instance), but I think that our country is better situated to engage in trade with China than is a destitute place like Zambia. We can negotiate as equals with the Chinese, accepting what behooves us and adjusting the terms of business to our liking. We have our own infrastructure, we have our own government services, so Chinese or other businesses can't extract our resources in return for merely building a few roads or schools. And I think that Colombia can equalize the balance of trade over time by exporting more value-added goods to China as opposed to only raw materials. So I am excited about the possibilities of commerce with China.
Almost a year ago my wife and I were selling our handmade jams in a national fair, when a woman approached us with a great offer: a year's subscription to La Republica, plus three free ads for our jams, for a very reasonable price. I eagerly accepted the offer, not knowing that La Republica was a business-focused paper, so I was surprised when we got our first issue. As a business daily it devotes inordinate space to big numbers, sales, etc. The paper gives a lot of coverage to mergers, stock offerings, corporate restructurings, and the like, which really isn't business news but rather finance. However, in a world in which so much of business is not actually production and sales of goods but rather shell games and reshuffling of capital, it seems that many "business dailies" focus mainly on the obscure machinations of high-level financiers.
Anyway, for a long time this daily newspaper went straight from our doorstep to the recycle pile, as neither of us was too interested in what the paper offered: rosy prognoses by the country's oligarchs, thinly-veiled promo pieces for private companies and government ministries, a consistent neoliberal bias that focuses on macroeconomics while not asking the hard questions about equity and real wealth creation. Many of the articles and editorials consist in willfully ignorant pronouncements by economic and political elites, who want to spin our country's inequality and poverty as something other than a total disaster.
But recently I've been reading the paper more. I don't read every article, but usually there are one or two interesting items in there. There are a few common themes that always grab my attention. Rightly or wrongly, I've come to think of myself as a smallscale mover and shaker, always looking for interesting business opportunities that might earn me a living while making my region a better place for its inhabitants. So I'm intrigued by articles on new business opportunities in Colombia, like this one on the growing call center sector and the major obstacles it faces. I fantasize about starting bilingual call centers for consumers in the US and Europe, or running tours for Chinese visitors to our country, or exporting emeralds, or whatever else I read about in the day's paper. Granted, I don't believe that exporting gems or receiving outsourced customer service responsibilities from richer countries are viable long-term strategies to advance Colombia or any other place, but on a small scale such businesses might be good for an innovative entrepreneur and his neighbors.
Another cool recent article is this one on economic and diplomatic relations between China and Colombia. The Chinese ambassador in our country talks about expanding Chinese tourism to Colombia, consumption of our raw materials, and a potential Chinese market for emeralds (of which Colombia is the world's leading producer). I glaze over the meaningless platitudes that abound in these types of articles: "We have many pending projects with Colombia and I hope that in the near future our relations reach new heights...I think every year our links are increasing. I believe we have a very solid base to further strengthen the links between both countries. Colombia is a country with lots of future, and it is a sister territory to China." But I am excited about the possibility of increased Chinese-Colombian commerce, because I think that people like me could learn some Chinese language and culture and position ourselves well as some sort of intercultural business attaches. I also love China's frankness about its insatiable commercial appetite: "Your raw materials are fascinating. You also have a great reserve of oil and especially of coal that interests us. ...Your traditional coal market has always been the US and European countries but with the crisis, these countries have reduced importation of coal from Colombia and for that you are looking for new markets like China."
On that note, I wanted to link to an article from the Atlantic about Chinese investment in Africa. This is a hot topic in development circles, because Chinese commercial development in the continent is surpassing Western development aid in many instances. This article is arguably imbued with the typical prejudices and preoccupations common to US accounts of China's rising presence on the world stage. I think that China's neo-colonial presence in Africa and other developing regions bring up some legitimate questions. Basically it seems that China is the first and only country in recent memory that is making a transition from an underdeveloped, exploited country to a world superpower exploiting underdeveloped countries. It's understandable that the heretofore powerful countries of the world are shaken by China's ascent, and it's right for local people in Africa and other places to be as critical of unethical practices by the Chinese as they are of those by other international companies.
That said, Chinese companies that extract raw materials from Third World countries don't seem that different from any other companies that do so. According to this article and other things I've read, there are large and small operators, companies that make use of more or fewer bribes, companies that contribute in differing degrees to real local development in the places they operate. But the interesting questions are if there truly are substantive differences in how Chinese companies and government relate to developing countries as compared to how the Western powers do so. If so, which model is more attractive for the Africans receiving this foreign interest--the Chinese who invest and extract without imposing their mores on Africans, or the Westerners who invest less but try to ensure a certain level of ethics (perhaps mere window-dressing) both in their own operations and in the governments receiving the money?
As I've noted above, China seems very interested in Colombia as a source of raw materials and a destination for Chinese production. I don't want Colombia to compromise its sovereignty by allowing Chinese firms to operate here with impunity (as I don't like our selling out to Canadian and US mining companies, for instance), but I think that our country is better situated to engage in trade with China than is a destitute place like Zambia. We can negotiate as equals with the Chinese, accepting what behooves us and adjusting the terms of business to our liking. We have our own infrastructure, we have our own government services, so Chinese or other businesses can't extract our resources in return for merely building a few roads or schools. And I think that Colombia can equalize the balance of trade over time by exporting more value-added goods to China as opposed to only raw materials. So I am excited about the possibilities of commerce with China.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Four more years of impunity?
I just got back from Bogota, where my wife went to vote today in the presidential runoff elections. But alas, despite her vote and the constructive political orientation we have given to friends, Colombia voted overwhelmingly for Juan Manuel Santos (to whom I will hereby refer as Piggy McFascist, for his appearance and his political philosophy). This is very sad for me, as it means that for at least four more years my adopted country will remain under a far-right-wing regime that tries to concentrate power in the executive branch and doesn't flinch at using bribery, surveillance, and even illegal executions of civilians to advance its agenda. My child will be born under this regime, and I will most likely raise him or her in this country. I hope for my child's sake that the Colombian public will change political course by the next presidential election. I hope even more that in the intervening four years our political system will not have been so corrupted and compromised as to permit a continued move towards a presidential dictatorship.
Agrarian Reform in South Africa
Here's a link from Raj Patel about poverty and agrarian reform in South Africa. More and more I'm noticing that the demands of many progressive grassroots groups are really not that radical. The food sovereignty campaign cited in Patel's post demands land redistribution, non-privatization of water resources, decent public housing, and a move towards more sustainable agriculture. Fifty years ago a government proposing such things would be considered within the political mainstream, but now so many governments have bought into the radical ideas of market deregulation, shrinking of government responsibilities, privatization of public resources, and consolidation of land and wealth, that it's left to small, supposedly radical grassroots movements to demand a bit of sanity in governance.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
A few arguments for biodiversity
This is a great video on the connections between human health and biodiversity. Aside from the much-cited utility of rare species as sources for current and future medical compounds, the presenter gives another good example of how biodiversity helps us: he describes the case of vultures in India, whose numbers have drastically dropped due to the use of a cattle medicine that is toxic to the vultures when they feast on the occasional dead cow in the field. Fewer vultures to clean up carrion has led to an explosion in the feral dog population, that has taken over the carrion-eating duties. And more feral dogs means more rabies--an increase of 50000 rabies cases a year in India due to the reduction in vulture population, by the presenter's account.
This talk of the value to humans of biodiversity of course makes me think about crop diversity, which is the range of crop species planted in the world, and the abundance of distinct varieties of each crop. Especially here where I live in the Andes mountains, we have a lot of indigenous crops well-suited to our climate. However, changing cultural values, consumption patterns, and climate trends have lessened the use of many of these rare crops, and some are even threatened with extinction. Some might argue that if people choose not to plant or consume these crops, then it must be because they aren't as good as other crops. This may or not be true, but either way it's a very shortsighted vision, because what if maka or ulluco or any one of our many native crop species have some undiscovered use that will be very valuable in the future? For instance cubio (Tropaeolum tuberosum) has already been shown to contain many anti-aphrodisiac chemicals. It was even used by the Incas to feed army troops on long campaigns, so they wouldn't rape and pillage. What if we find that this crop can yield a potent medicine to treat aggression caused by high testosterone levels? Or if it also has anti-cancer properties? It would be good if the crop were still around to use, because otherwise we'd miss out on these and untold other future possibilities.
I have been writing fact sheets about ten species of native Andean crops for an educational garden I'm planning with the local museum here in my town. I just finished the sheet for achira (Canna indica). This plant is probably better known to my US readers as Canna, a showy garden flower:
But achira was originally domesticated by Andean peoples at the very dawn of agriculture as a tuber crop:
It was replaced over time by other crops that had attractive features like a higher yield or less fiber in the tuber, but it is still used to make cookies and for certain special occasions. These uses are diminishing here in the Andes as our diet is more and more dominated by rice and potatoes. But in Vietnam the achira has become a very important plant. Vietnamese farmers grow this tuber and extract its starch through simple methods. The starch is then used to fabricate glass noodles, which are an important food item in Vietnam (also with ceremonial significance) that people used to make from mung bean starch. So in Vietnam there are thousands of acres planted to achira, and it is an important source of income and cottage industry in many regions. However, if achira had disappeared in its native Andean habitat before being introduced to Vietnam, this wonderful and important use of the plant would never have been discovered, and the world would be poorer for it.
Sustaining Life, How Human Health Depends on Biodiversity from Robert Moran on Vimeo.
This talk of the value to humans of biodiversity of course makes me think about crop diversity, which is the range of crop species planted in the world, and the abundance of distinct varieties of each crop. Especially here where I live in the Andes mountains, we have a lot of indigenous crops well-suited to our climate. However, changing cultural values, consumption patterns, and climate trends have lessened the use of many of these rare crops, and some are even threatened with extinction. Some might argue that if people choose not to plant or consume these crops, then it must be because they aren't as good as other crops. This may or not be true, but either way it's a very shortsighted vision, because what if maka or ulluco or any one of our many native crop species have some undiscovered use that will be very valuable in the future? For instance cubio (Tropaeolum tuberosum) has already been shown to contain many anti-aphrodisiac chemicals. It was even used by the Incas to feed army troops on long campaigns, so they wouldn't rape and pillage. What if we find that this crop can yield a potent medicine to treat aggression caused by high testosterone levels? Or if it also has anti-cancer properties? It would be good if the crop were still around to use, because otherwise we'd miss out on these and untold other future possibilities.
I have been writing fact sheets about ten species of native Andean crops for an educational garden I'm planning with the local museum here in my town. I just finished the sheet for achira (Canna indica). This plant is probably better known to my US readers as Canna, a showy garden flower:
But achira was originally domesticated by Andean peoples at the very dawn of agriculture as a tuber crop:
It was replaced over time by other crops that had attractive features like a higher yield or less fiber in the tuber, but it is still used to make cookies and for certain special occasions. These uses are diminishing here in the Andes as our diet is more and more dominated by rice and potatoes. But in Vietnam the achira has become a very important plant. Vietnamese farmers grow this tuber and extract its starch through simple methods. The starch is then used to fabricate glass noodles, which are an important food item in Vietnam (also with ceremonial significance) that people used to make from mung bean starch. So in Vietnam there are thousands of acres planted to achira, and it is an important source of income and cottage industry in many regions. However, if achira had disappeared in its native Andean habitat before being introduced to Vietnam, this wonderful and important use of the plant would never have been discovered, and the world would be poorer for it.
State companies vs. private companies
Here's an article by David Brooks. I never think his ideas are very well-thought or creative, but this article is a particularly egregious case of blind political cheerleading.
Basically he argues that there are two big camps in world capitalism--the democratic capitalists, and the state capitalists. According to Brooks, democratic capitalism is when there exists a government that does not get involved in private business except to regulate it. State capitalism is when government owns and controls certain companies.
First off, it's silly to oppose these two things as mutually exclusive. We in the US, his prime example of a democratic capitalist country, have certain publicly-run companies. Our federal government part-owns Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the old Panama Canal Commission, and now Citigroup and General Motors, and state governments own the lottos. BP, Brooks's other example of democratic capitalism, was part-owned by the British government until the 1980s. Likewise, the "state-owned" companies Brooks cites are not fully so. Companies like Gazprom are only partially owned by their respective governments, with larger or smaller shares of ownership publicly traded on stock markets.
Beyond this, the term "democratic capitalism" seems poorly chosen, though sure to predispose us well towards the concept, because democratic is good. The big businesses that operate within what Brooks calls democratic capitalism are not at all democratic. Those who run McDonald's or Shell or Walmart are not elected by the general populace, and do not represent the interests of this demos. These private companies answer to their shareholders, which comprise a minority of the general populace. So I think it's best to call this elite capitalism, as opposed to democratic capitalism.
One could even argue that what Brooks has deemed "state capitalism" is more democratic than elite capitalism, because the people who run the big businesses are linked to the government, for which they have to respond at least somewhat to the demands of the public. Of course to illustrate his point Brooks cites certain authoritarian countries practicing state capitalism: Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela. Brooks fails to cite Brazil in this list, owner of Petrobras and a relatively normal democracy. But even the other, less democratic regimes Brooks cites have to be more responsive to their people's demands than a private corporation would be.
Brooks seems to be implying that state-owned enterprises are somehow linked to corrupt or authoritarian regimes, but I don't know of any substantive evidence that correlates corrupt countries more with state-owned as opposed to private-owned corporations. For instance, Nigeria is a major oil producer and a very corrupt society, but most of the operators I know of there are private companies. I believe there is a prevalence of state-owned enterprise in Scandinavia, though those countries are known for their transparency.
Brooks then proceeds to make a number of other biased statements. He claims that state capitalism exists to finance the ruling classes. I could cynically parallel this statement by saying that private capitalism exists to finance the wealthy classes. He says that "under state capitalism, authoritarian governments use markets 'to create wealth that can be directed as political officials see fit.' The ultimate motive, he continues, 'is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state’s power and the leadership’s chances of survival).'" Once again we see that Brooks is linking authoritarian government and state capitalism. This is an unfair, lazy way to justify his anti-government cynicism, which posits government as little more than a bunch of corrupt leeches looking to milk society for personal gain. But isn't it possible, in fact normal, for elected officials to work for the common good? Do we assume for instance that state- or municipal-owned utility companies (water, electric, etc.) in the US exist purely so public officials can enrich themselves? I think not.
The author also poses such specious questions as: "Should governments be able to tilt the playing field to benefit well-connected national champions?" Stated this way, it seems like a dirty, unfair thing to do, but I don't think most people in the US or anywhere would say that it's bad for local firms to have a priority bid in local affairs.
Another misrepresentation by Brooks is that the world's private oil companies are somehow getting a raw deal. As shown in this article, until 2007 ExxonMobil was the world's largest energy company. Brooks is correct in pointing out that in the last few years the national energy companies have grown and risen in importance, but I don't see the problem in that. It isn't a radical proposition that Brazil's oil belongs to Brazil, China's to China, etc. Also, while Brooks points out that state enterprises sometimes invest in private companies, he doesn't mention that many state enterprises have shares traded on public stock markets, so they too respond in part to Brooks's beloved shareholders.
Brooks closes with a series of platitudes that we can supposedly all agree on. "Innovative companies can’t thrive unless there’s also a free exchange of ideas." First off, I don't know how innovative oil companies need to be these days. Once you've identified a deposit, you just plug in and extract it. But furthermore, there's no reason that a big, clunky company like Shell or BP would be more innovative or free-thinking than a big, clunky company like Petrobras. "A high-tech economy requires more creative destruction than an authoritarian government can tolerate." Again, Brooks is assuming that state-run companies only exist in authoritarian regimes, which just isn't true. "Cronyism will inevitably undermine efficiency." This is true, but I don't have reason to believe that the cronyism generated by private companies (think Halliburton, ADM, Enron) is any less destructive or inefficient than the cronyism of a state company (Gazprom, Petroleos de Venezuela, CNOOC). "State capitalism taps into deep nationalist passions and offers psychic security for people who detest the hurly-burly of modern capitalism." This statement is once again a very cynical treatment of people and their governments. Instead of pathologizing people's aversion to certain private corporations, Brooks would do well to consider that perhaps those who want more national control of resources and wealth distribution are rational, thinking beings. Maybe their support for state-owned companies is a sincere proposal in favor of public accountability of the economy, and not merely a manifestation of "nationalist passions" or a desperate clawing for "psychic security". And what the fuck is "the hurly-burly of modern capitalism"? I'm no writer for the New York Times, but I do have a copy of "The Elements of Style", and it says that if you want to say a particular thing, you should say it. White and Strunk give no injunction to invent vague words when you don't have a fucking point.
Finally, I want to point out a little barb Brooks throws at our democracy and our welfare state at the end of his essay. He claims that democratic governments have "a tendency to make unaffordable promises to the elderly and other politically powerful groups". I presume this is another recycling of the old hackneyed lie that Social Security is not viable (though in Brooks's unclear, say-anything-and-nothing prose, it's not totally clear what he's referring to). Social Security is solvent for something like the next 40 years, and in fact if there have been major unaffordable promises made in the US to powerful lobbies, they are the billions of dollars we throw to the defense industry. And I don't think the domination of government by the defense sector is a problem unique to democracies.
I started this post with the intention to write a clear, reasoned rebuttal to Brooks's article. I hope I've succeeded. But as I've reread his article and written mine, I've gotten more and more angry with Brooks. His article is poorly written, poorly reasoned, full of commonplaces and cliches. It offends me not only as a thinking person who believes in the reasonable role of government and national sovereignty, but as someone who believes in clear, succinct writing. People look to the New York Times for insights and well-reasoned, well-crafted arguments, not for two-dimensional partisan tripe.
Basically he argues that there are two big camps in world capitalism--the democratic capitalists, and the state capitalists. According to Brooks, democratic capitalism is when there exists a government that does not get involved in private business except to regulate it. State capitalism is when government owns and controls certain companies.
First off, it's silly to oppose these two things as mutually exclusive. We in the US, his prime example of a democratic capitalist country, have certain publicly-run companies. Our federal government part-owns Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the old Panama Canal Commission, and now Citigroup and General Motors, and state governments own the lottos. BP, Brooks's other example of democratic capitalism, was part-owned by the British government until the 1980s. Likewise, the "state-owned" companies Brooks cites are not fully so. Companies like Gazprom are only partially owned by their respective governments, with larger or smaller shares of ownership publicly traded on stock markets.
Beyond this, the term "democratic capitalism" seems poorly chosen, though sure to predispose us well towards the concept, because democratic is good. The big businesses that operate within what Brooks calls democratic capitalism are not at all democratic. Those who run McDonald's or Shell or Walmart are not elected by the general populace, and do not represent the interests of this demos. These private companies answer to their shareholders, which comprise a minority of the general populace. So I think it's best to call this elite capitalism, as opposed to democratic capitalism.
One could even argue that what Brooks has deemed "state capitalism" is more democratic than elite capitalism, because the people who run the big businesses are linked to the government, for which they have to respond at least somewhat to the demands of the public. Of course to illustrate his point Brooks cites certain authoritarian countries practicing state capitalism: Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela. Brooks fails to cite Brazil in this list, owner of Petrobras and a relatively normal democracy. But even the other, less democratic regimes Brooks cites have to be more responsive to their people's demands than a private corporation would be.
Brooks seems to be implying that state-owned enterprises are somehow linked to corrupt or authoritarian regimes, but I don't know of any substantive evidence that correlates corrupt countries more with state-owned as opposed to private-owned corporations. For instance, Nigeria is a major oil producer and a very corrupt society, but most of the operators I know of there are private companies. I believe there is a prevalence of state-owned enterprise in Scandinavia, though those countries are known for their transparency.
Brooks then proceeds to make a number of other biased statements. He claims that state capitalism exists to finance the ruling classes. I could cynically parallel this statement by saying that private capitalism exists to finance the wealthy classes. He says that "under state capitalism, authoritarian governments use markets 'to create wealth that can be directed as political officials see fit.' The ultimate motive, he continues, 'is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state’s power and the leadership’s chances of survival).'" Once again we see that Brooks is linking authoritarian government and state capitalism. This is an unfair, lazy way to justify his anti-government cynicism, which posits government as little more than a bunch of corrupt leeches looking to milk society for personal gain. But isn't it possible, in fact normal, for elected officials to work for the common good? Do we assume for instance that state- or municipal-owned utility companies (water, electric, etc.) in the US exist purely so public officials can enrich themselves? I think not.
The author also poses such specious questions as: "Should governments be able to tilt the playing field to benefit well-connected national champions?" Stated this way, it seems like a dirty, unfair thing to do, but I don't think most people in the US or anywhere would say that it's bad for local firms to have a priority bid in local affairs.
Another misrepresentation by Brooks is that the world's private oil companies are somehow getting a raw deal. As shown in this article, until 2007 ExxonMobil was the world's largest energy company. Brooks is correct in pointing out that in the last few years the national energy companies have grown and risen in importance, but I don't see the problem in that. It isn't a radical proposition that Brazil's oil belongs to Brazil, China's to China, etc. Also, while Brooks points out that state enterprises sometimes invest in private companies, he doesn't mention that many state enterprises have shares traded on public stock markets, so they too respond in part to Brooks's beloved shareholders.
Brooks closes with a series of platitudes that we can supposedly all agree on. "Innovative companies can’t thrive unless there’s also a free exchange of ideas." First off, I don't know how innovative oil companies need to be these days. Once you've identified a deposit, you just plug in and extract it. But furthermore, there's no reason that a big, clunky company like Shell or BP would be more innovative or free-thinking than a big, clunky company like Petrobras. "A high-tech economy requires more creative destruction than an authoritarian government can tolerate." Again, Brooks is assuming that state-run companies only exist in authoritarian regimes, which just isn't true. "Cronyism will inevitably undermine efficiency." This is true, but I don't have reason to believe that the cronyism generated by private companies (think Halliburton, ADM, Enron) is any less destructive or inefficient than the cronyism of a state company (Gazprom, Petroleos de Venezuela, CNOOC). "State capitalism taps into deep nationalist passions and offers psychic security for people who detest the hurly-burly of modern capitalism." This statement is once again a very cynical treatment of people and their governments. Instead of pathologizing people's aversion to certain private corporations, Brooks would do well to consider that perhaps those who want more national control of resources and wealth distribution are rational, thinking beings. Maybe their support for state-owned companies is a sincere proposal in favor of public accountability of the economy, and not merely a manifestation of "nationalist passions" or a desperate clawing for "psychic security". And what the fuck is "the hurly-burly of modern capitalism"? I'm no writer for the New York Times, but I do have a copy of "The Elements of Style", and it says that if you want to say a particular thing, you should say it. White and Strunk give no injunction to invent vague words when you don't have a fucking point.
Finally, I want to point out a little barb Brooks throws at our democracy and our welfare state at the end of his essay. He claims that democratic governments have "a tendency to make unaffordable promises to the elderly and other politically powerful groups". I presume this is another recycling of the old hackneyed lie that Social Security is not viable (though in Brooks's unclear, say-anything-and-nothing prose, it's not totally clear what he's referring to). Social Security is solvent for something like the next 40 years, and in fact if there have been major unaffordable promises made in the US to powerful lobbies, they are the billions of dollars we throw to the defense industry. And I don't think the domination of government by the defense sector is a problem unique to democracies.
I started this post with the intention to write a clear, reasoned rebuttal to Brooks's article. I hope I've succeeded. But as I've reread his article and written mine, I've gotten more and more angry with Brooks. His article is poorly written, poorly reasoned, full of commonplaces and cliches. It offends me not only as a thinking person who believes in the reasonable role of government and national sovereignty, but as someone who believes in clear, succinct writing. People look to the New York Times for insights and well-reasoned, well-crafted arguments, not for two-dimensional partisan tripe.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
My workshop on sustainable development
A few weeks ago I led a workshop on sustainable development. Basically I explained sustainable development as a three-way balance between environmental sustainability, economic viability, and social equality. You can look at any development proposal through the lens of this conceptual triangle; some proposals are environmentally sound but not economically so, some proposals are very fair socially and economically, but they mess up the environment, etc. And if you want a development project you're designing to be sustainable, you should weigh these three aspects in your project design.
My presentation consisted in a definition of sustainable development (as well as of agroecology and permaculture, which are somewhat related concepts), followed by an analysis of a few cases of agrarian development projects. Then with the workshop attendees, we analyzed together the case of Las Gaviotas, a sustainable village I've written about on this blog. Finally I asked groups of attendees to put together and present their own sustainable development proposals for the villages affected by the massive closure of slaughterhouses here in our state of Boyaca. The workshop went really well, and I felt like a big deal.
Anyway, here are a few photos from the workshop.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
State vs. individual
I was meaning to write this post today anyway, and now with my recent post on Ayn Rand it seems even more appropriate. Here's a NYT article in which the author, J.M. Bernstein, puts forward an explanation of the Tea Party's seething anger as the disorientation of a jilted lover. In this case the lover is the Tea Party citizenry, which due to recent political and economic events is forced to acknowledge its begrudging dependence on the State for certain aspects of its wellbeing (Social Security, healthcare, roads, etc.). I know, I know, another New York Times analyst bemusedly observing the Tea Party movement as a pathology, proposing fanciful metaphors to explain it away. But I think this article is well done, and I like its bringing to the fore the fact that we live in society, its vindication of the role of collective government in our lives. We are social beings, though our abstracted philosophical discussions in the US often ignore the essential social underpinnings of our life (see my post on Rand, where I touch on the agrarian basis of society that urban intellectuals are often completely unaware of). The pure, independent individual doesn't exist in the 21st-century USA; perhaps it hasn't existed since the dawn of agriculture 10000 years ago, or even before that. And while I don't believe in Hobbes's brutal state of nature except as a theoretical construct (the lawless savages he cites actually lived in pretty highly-structured, cohesive societies), I worry that the anti-State nihilism at the root of Tea Party thought could bring us closer to such a situation of all against all.
Here are some older NYT articles relating to militias and terrorism. Justly or not, I lump the militias and Oklahoma City-type terrorists with Tea Party thought. This could be what the nihilism Bernstein worries about would look like.
Despite my recognition of the role of the State and our social nature as humans, I do like a good fantasy of individualism and living in the wild. Here's an article on people who've decided to live the solitary life. I respect and even romanticize their decision, and I don't attribute it to some antisocial pathology or something. But in the end I know that such a life is not really viable for the world; it's not something that we all can do or should want to do. For me the connection to place is very important, but part of the connection to place is social; a place is the people who live there. So just living by yourself in a place doesn't seem to me to be as enlightening or constructive for the world as living in a place with others. And in fact it seems that for the people interviewed in the article, it's not necessarily a permanent, long-term proposal for how to live. Their living alone in the wild coincides with a particular moment in life. It's not what they've always done, and for many it won't be what they do for the rest of their lives. I think this is reasonable. I can see the attraction of living a solitary, contemplative life for a time, but ultimately I couldn't live with myself if I were only living for myself!
Here are some older NYT articles relating to militias and terrorism. Justly or not, I lump the militias and Oklahoma City-type terrorists with Tea Party thought. This could be what the nihilism Bernstein worries about would look like.
Despite my recognition of the role of the State and our social nature as humans, I do like a good fantasy of individualism and living in the wild. Here's an article on people who've decided to live the solitary life. I respect and even romanticize their decision, and I don't attribute it to some antisocial pathology or something. But in the end I know that such a life is not really viable for the world; it's not something that we all can do or should want to do. For me the connection to place is very important, but part of the connection to place is social; a place is the people who live there. So just living by yourself in a place doesn't seem to me to be as enlightening or constructive for the world as living in a place with others. And in fact it seems that for the people interviewed in the article, it's not necessarily a permanent, long-term proposal for how to live. Their living alone in the wild coincides with a particular moment in life. It's not what they've always done, and for many it won't be what they do for the rest of their lives. I think this is reasonable. I can see the attraction of living a solitary, contemplative life for a time, but ultimately I couldn't live with myself if I were only living for myself!
Healthcare in Rwanda
Here's a good, short piece from the NYT that praises Rwanda's ambitious, though modest, national health care system, while signaling some potential pitfalls (namely that it's currently reliant on outside donors).
Ayn Rand
Here's an article about Ayn Rand from the Nation. The author asserts that Rand was mediocre both in the form and the content of her writing. The author also compares Randism to Nazism. While I see the parallels between the two self-justifying systems in which the powerful assert their absolute right to privilege, I think it's always an ugly, intellectually lazy exercise to compare any philosophy to Nazism.
I've never read Rand, but this article reignites my desire to read her (though I wonder if I'd be able to stomach hundreds of pages of bombastic melodrama and puerile pontificating).
In college I often crossed paths with young Objectivists (as Rand's followers are known). Their insistence in the merit and superiority of the rich and powerful (as demonstrated by their being rich and powerful, an eminently tautological argument) always seemed silly and thin to me, and in general I always had the impression that those who espoused Rand's ideas were basing their beliefs on a very limited, privileged experience of reality. Here in Colombia, for example, it's not at all the most qualified or smartest people who have most of the power and wealth--usually it's oligarchs who were born into their family's wealth and power. Another seeming parry to what little I know of Rand's ideas is that the mass of people are not in fact idle moochers living and benefiting thanks to the brilliance of a few elite heroes. The mass of people throughout post-Neolithic history have been farmers that were wholly responsible for their own well-being, with the elites of a given society taking wealth from them and offering little in return. So it seems that Rand's model of society, like that of many other non-agrarian thinkers, is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't consider the independence and ingenuity of the agrarian masses that form the base of any functioning society.
I quote a passage from Rand, as quoted in the article: "The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains. Such is the nature of the "competition" between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of "exploitation" for which you have damned the strong."
This passage is fundamentally ridiculous. The intellect is not the main thing preserving people, though it's obviously important. But even if we were to accept that there exists an intellectual pyramid with certain people at the top, those people rely on an entire societal network to feed, clothe, raise, and protect them. There exists no "man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude", because in fact the man at the bottom is usually a hunter or a farmer, who manages to feed himself, his family, and other people off of his farm. Einstein or Edison, as brilliant as they were, wouldn't last a day if they were called upon to feed themselves directly. And the contrary is true: while I as an educated, wealthy person in a Western consumer society, very much appreciate the ideas and accomplishments of these great thinkers, their contributions to society can never compare to the produce of the humblest farmer. Equations and light bulbs are nice, but food is essential.
This though is not obvious for an urban intellectual like Rand, who seemingly dedicated all her time to writing and movies, and presumably was too caught up in grand thoughts to reflect on where the food that sustained her was coming from.
I've never read Rand, but this article reignites my desire to read her (though I wonder if I'd be able to stomach hundreds of pages of bombastic melodrama and puerile pontificating).
In college I often crossed paths with young Objectivists (as Rand's followers are known). Their insistence in the merit and superiority of the rich and powerful (as demonstrated by their being rich and powerful, an eminently tautological argument) always seemed silly and thin to me, and in general I always had the impression that those who espoused Rand's ideas were basing their beliefs on a very limited, privileged experience of reality. Here in Colombia, for example, it's not at all the most qualified or smartest people who have most of the power and wealth--usually it's oligarchs who were born into their family's wealth and power. Another seeming parry to what little I know of Rand's ideas is that the mass of people are not in fact idle moochers living and benefiting thanks to the brilliance of a few elite heroes. The mass of people throughout post-Neolithic history have been farmers that were wholly responsible for their own well-being, with the elites of a given society taking wealth from them and offering little in return. So it seems that Rand's model of society, like that of many other non-agrarian thinkers, is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't consider the independence and ingenuity of the agrarian masses that form the base of any functioning society.
I quote a passage from Rand, as quoted in the article: "The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains. Such is the nature of the "competition" between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of "exploitation" for which you have damned the strong."
This passage is fundamentally ridiculous. The intellect is not the main thing preserving people, though it's obviously important. But even if we were to accept that there exists an intellectual pyramid with certain people at the top, those people rely on an entire societal network to feed, clothe, raise, and protect them. There exists no "man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude", because in fact the man at the bottom is usually a hunter or a farmer, who manages to feed himself, his family, and other people off of his farm. Einstein or Edison, as brilliant as they were, wouldn't last a day if they were called upon to feed themselves directly. And the contrary is true: while I as an educated, wealthy person in a Western consumer society, very much appreciate the ideas and accomplishments of these great thinkers, their contributions to society can never compare to the produce of the humblest farmer. Equations and light bulbs are nice, but food is essential.
This though is not obvious for an urban intellectual like Rand, who seemingly dedicated all her time to writing and movies, and presumably was too caught up in grand thoughts to reflect on where the food that sustained her was coming from.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Proposal for an international course in agrarian diagnostic and collaborative agrarian development
This is a proposal I wrote a few months ago for a professor from the U of I. In the end, neither that professor nor other professors I contacted from North Carolina and Wisconsin wanted to follow through with the project and present it to potential funders. But I'm posting it here because I think it was and is a good idea, and I welcome inquiries from anyone who might be interested in collaborating on such a project.
Summary
This project proposes a series of hands-on educational exercises in agrarian diagnostic and collaborative agricultural development, abroad and in the US. It will strengthen the ability of the University of Illinois and its graduates in Crop Sciences and other fields to analyze farming realities in any given region and to work with local farmers to address their most important problems. All activities will lead to strengthened links between the universities involved (University of Illinois, the Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, and Supagro Institut des Regions Chaudes in France) and the farming communities studied in the three countries.
US land grant universities have long been considered a beacon for models of agricultural teaching, research, and extension. However, the rapid loss of US family farms over the past hundred plus years indicates that these universities need to improve their capacity to respond to farmer priorities and needs, in order to make farming more viable for the families that depend on it.
This project will train students and professors from the University of Illinois, the UPTC in Colombia, and Supagro IRC in France, in the methodologies of agrarian diagnostic and collaborative agricultural development with farmers. A group comprised of students and professors from the three universities will carry out an agrarian diagnostic and a process of collaborative development with farmers in each of the three countries. The exposure of students to different agricultural realities, and to other students' perspectives on these realities, will prepare them to effectively work with farmers in any context in the US or abroad. Publications on the methodologies and results of the different exercises will be made available in English, Spanish, and French so that other universities can employ these approaches to better respond to farmer priorities.
Objectives
The general objective of this project is to create and strengthen collaborative links between the three universities involved (UIUC in Illinois, UPTC in Colombia, and Supagro IRC in France) and three local farming communities studied, one in each country.
Objective 1: Train students and professors from University of Illinois, Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, and Supagro Institut des Regions Chaudes in carrying out agrarian diagnostics.
Objective 2: Train students and professors in carrying out processes of collaborative rural development with local farmers.
Objective 3: Share these methods and case studies with other universities in the US, Colombia, and France.
Justification
The methodologies of agrarian diagnostic and collaborative agricultural development have the potential to guide agricultural education, research, and extension to respond directly to farmers' problems. The US land grant universities are exemplary for their cutting-edge research in agriculture, and for the novelty of their agricultural extension systems. However, the curriculum taught to undergraduates often focuses so much on the technical aspects of farming, such as soils, fertility, and pest management, that the human factor of farming is forgotten. Ultimately farming is dependent on farmers, who should be the central focus of all agricultural research and extension. Given the stunning loss of family farms over the almost 150 years since the foundation of the land grant system, it is evident that the work of the universities and their graduates has not been entirely successful at responding to the priorities of farmers and maintaining the viability of their farms.
This project proposes a series of hands-on educational exercises in agrarian diagnostic and collaborative agricultural development, abroad and in the US. It will strengthen the ability of the University of Illinois and its graduates in Crop Sciences and other fields to analyze farming realities in any given region and to work with local farmers to address their most important problems. Through publications summarizing the methodology and results of these educational exercises, this knowledge will also be shared with other US universities, which will allow them too to respond better to farmer priorities.
Training multidisciplinary and multinational teams of students in these methods improves international competence of the University of Illinois in a number of ways. Firstly, the exposure of students to agricultural realities in different countries expands their understanding of the diversity of farming in the world. Secondly, the diverse viewpoints of students from different disciplines and different countries force all students to challenge their own preconceptions and to consider ideas they would not have been exposed to otherwise. Thirdly, the technique of agrarian diagnostic taught through this project has its origins in France, and is hence a wise use of an international methodology. Lastly, the agrarian diagnostic expands students' understanding of agriculture to take into account social and economic factors in addition to the geographic and biological factors normally associated with farming. Students will learn to analyze local agricultural realities of any part of the world in a holistic way and then to collaborate with farmers on local development efforts. In all these ways, the exercise of agrarian diagnostic and collaborative agricultural development is useful for agronomy students who plan on a career in the US or abroad in extension, rural development, agricultural product sales, research, or in any other role in which the ultimate goal is to serve farmers. For non-agronomy students the exercise gives them tools to work together with both experts and practitioners in any field to assess priorities and work in collaboration toward satisfying those priorities. The exercise also exposes non-agronomy majors to agricultural questions and can potentially steer future experts of diverse backgrounds to focus on agricultural problems.
The collaboration of the involved universities on this project, as well as their links to the local farming communities involved in the exercises, will lay the groundwork for future projects between the universities. In addition, the fact of having worked directly with farmers in their own countries and in other countries will serve as a model for the universities' future projects in agricultural research, extension, and rural development.
Approach
The proposed project has a duration of 2.5 years, from August 2010 to January of 2013. The activities are as follows:
Preparation and management activities
Prior to the first study tour, there are a number of general tasks that must be undertaken. Each university must conform an administrative and teaching team to work on the project. There must also be a student extracurricular group at each university willing to host and carry out the processes of collaborative development with farmers in the semester after each study tour. Finally, professors at all three universities will be given guides to the processes of agrarian diagnostic and collaborative development, and will discuss and adjust the methodologies.
Two semesters before each study trip, there will be a process of student recruitment for the trips. Professors involved with the project will make presentations to different groups to attract interest for the trip and subsequent collaborative development process. Any students wishing to participate will take intensive basic language classes during the semester preceding the study trip (in French, Spanish, or English, depending on trip destination).
Activities to achieve objective 1: Training in agrarian diagnostics.
In summer break of 2011, a group of 10 students from UIUC, 10 from UPTC, and 10 from Supagro IRC, as well as 2-3 academic professionals from each of the universities, will spend three weeks in Colombia: two weeks in the central high plains of Colombia conducting an agrarian diagnostic exercise (in some place where the authorities or farmers ask for a diagnostic), then a week compiling group reports on the diagnostic exercise. During the two week diagnostic exercise, the large group of students and professors would stay in a central village of the selected zone, and activities would center on a meeting room. Every day would consist of an introductory morning lecture, the dispatching of small groups (4-5 students) to carry out that day's fieldwork, the return of small groups to the meeting room to compile and synthesize their information in posters, the presentation of each small group's posters to the other groups, and a summary lecture by the professor team to end the day and preview the next day's fieldwork.
The sequence of fieldwork activities carried out over the two-week period has five steps: landscape observation and interpretation, interviews with older farmers to reconstruct the history of the landscape, interviews with more farmers to describe the functioning and economics of each rotation practiced, a detailed description of the functioning of the different types of farms of the region, and finally a presentation of results to farmers and other local residents.
The final reports written by each group, as well as individual interventions in group seminars, will be the basis for grades awarded to each of the 30 students for this three-week fieldwork experience, which will have a weight of 3 UIUC credit hours. Participating students and professors will also receive a certificate in agrarian diagnostic, co-issued by the three universities. Participating students will make presentations after the trip to interested classes.
In winter break 2011-2012, a similar group (though not necessarily composed of the same students and professors) will perform the same diagnostic exercise in a rural zone of the Mediterranean region of France.
Finally in summer break of 2012, a similar group will perform the same exercise in a rural area of Illinois.
It is not expected that the same students and professors will be willing or able to participate in all three exercises, due to personal scheduling, priorities, and graduations. However, those participating in two or three of the exercises will receive certificates to the effect that they have acquired a further expertise in carrying out agrarian diagnostics.
Activities to achieve objective 2: Training in collaborative local development processes with local farmers.
In the semester following each agrarian diagnostic field exercise (fall semester 2011 for the Colombia trip, spring semester 2012 for the France trip, and fall semester 2012 for the Illinois diagnostic), students will engage in a process of collaborative agricultural development with a group of farmers from the zone studied in the agrarian diagnostic. These groups will be conformed of interested farmers who attended the presentation of final results at the end of the diagnostic exercise. A student extracurricular group from each university (for example a subcommittee of the Field and Furrow club at UIUC), including but not limited to students who participated in the prior agrarian diagnostic, will organize a series of meetings with these farmers to expand on the conclusions of the agrarian diagnostic and pinpoint major problems and priorities for these farmers. Over a period of six months, the farmers and the students will plan and implement a project to address one of these major problems. Due to obvious geographical limitations, the student group from the university in the country where the agrarian diagnostic was conducted will be the ones to have the most direct contact with the farmers, but the student groups from all three countries will conduct regular correspondence with one another to design and implement the project.
Students from all three universities participating in this process of collaborative development with farmers will receive credit for a one hour independent study course at UIUC. Grading will be based on an initial paper from each student group with recommendations for activities to implement, a project design agreed upon with farmers and written up by the three student groups together, and a final evaluation by professors of the project outcome as compared to stated objectives. At the end of the six-month period, upon completing the planned project with farmers, students will receive a certificate in collaborative agricultural development, jointly issued by the three universities. It is not necessary for students to have participated in the agrarian diagnostic exercise to participate in and receive credit and certification for the collaborative development exercise. Participating students will make presentations to interested classes after the semester-long process of collaborative development.
Activities to achieve objective 3: Sharing of methods and results with other universities in the US, Colombia, and France.
Upon completion of each agrarian diagnostic, the professor team from the three involved universities will write a guidebook describing the day-by-day process of the agrarian diagnostic as it unfolded in the specific case. This guidebook will be published in English, Spanish, and French, and will be disseminated to other interested universities in the three countries.
Likewise, upon completion of each process of collaborative agricultural development, the professor team will write a narrative of the students' process of working with farmers. This too will be published in three languages and made available to any interested universities.
Students at UIUC who have participated in the agrarian diagnostic and collaborative development exercises will also make guest presentations to any appropriate classes (agronomy, development, anthropology, etc.), and the publications resulting from the different diagnostics and collaborative development projects will be available for use as models and case studies for any UIUC professors who are interested.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Op Ed I wrote for the New York Times (of course they didn't publish it)
I wrote this light-hearted little ditty in response to a post on the NYT's philosophy blog, The Stone. In his post, "Should this be the last generation?", philosopher Peter Singer discusses the moral ramifications of bringing children into the world when we know they will suffer in their lifetimes. So here's what I wrote:
Is life worth living? Is existence a boon or a burden?
I live in Colombia, and from our neck of the woods this debate seems a bit odd. Though I'm not well-versed in the great philosophers, I'm sure someone at some point must have argued that life is self-evidently worth living, because if life were decidedly, unequivocally miserable, we would have long ago (perhaps before the start of recorded history) seen a spate of suicides committed by rational people who calculated that the pain of life invalidated the pleasures, for them and for any potential progeny. And Mr. Singer's claim that “we don’t usually think the fact that a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life is a reason for bringing the child into existence” is also suspect. I think that the implicit reason most people have children is that they think life is wonderful, and they want to share that wonder with other people, not just those already around them but also new people that can spring forth from the very wonder and love they experience in life. This reasoning is sometimes explicitly stated by potential or expecting parents, and I imagine many religions and philosophies (I know it's the case for Catholic theology) have an articulated, explicit argument for the goodness of existence and hence procreation.
Singer makes at least a tangential nod to the difference of standards of happiness in different cultures by mentioning “the standard of life experienced by most people in developed nations today”. One could read in Singer's above-quoted fragment an implicit conviction that life is better in the rich world than elsewhere, which is obviously an arbitrary, sort of chauvinistic assertion (though widely spread in the rich world). I understand the logic of restricting the discussion to the rich world that many prominent thinkers (and the readers of the NYT) might be most familiar with, but a cynic could say that Singer won't even consider the adequacy of the standard of life in the Third World, because it can't compare to the great life people have in the US and Europe. Given the subject matter of this column (whether existence is worthwhile), we could thus infer that while the answer is a toss-up for the richies, there's no doubt that we in the Third World should go to the nearest tree to hang ourselves and end our deprived lives and unsatisfied consumer desires! Such a parochial, rich world attitude would be quite misled, because life is pretty okay in the rest of the world too. I can't speak for a destitute country in Africa that might have many objective indicators (life expectancy, infant mortality, malnutrition, etc.) that would seem to support the affirmation that life is truly worse there than in other places. But in our country, Colombia, many objective indicators of quality of life and happiness are equal to or better than in the US or Europe, despite our average income's being much lower.
Most striking to me in this column are the implicit assumptions in Schopenhauer's and Benatar's arguments. First off, they imply that human happiness is based on the satisfying of desires. This is not necessarily so, though maybe in a wealthy consumer society it seems obvious. But it could reasonably be argued that life and happiness are not merely the ratio of desires felt to desires met, a tally of toys and fun things we have acquired or experienced relative to our appetite. If this were the case, then Schopenhauer and Benatar would indeed have a point—the desire to consume (whether one is consuming manufactured products or life experiences) is infinitely greater than what can actually be consumed or accessed in a lifetime, and the satisfaction of “consuming” something (be it a toy, a Happy Meal, or a milestone in life) disappears quickly. But in my personal experience, most of my happiness is not due to consuming products or life experiences.
Most of my satisfaction comes from just existing, eating, working, thinking, talking with my friends and family, seeing the things around me (see Nicholas Kristoff's NYT column on appreciating life's little details after having survived a cancer scare). When I pursue some grand goal, the process and the pursuit is at least as satisfying, and certainly more durably so, than the final achievement itself. So maybe someone like Schopenhauer, with his posited existence of a futile striving for fleeting ends, could be happy if he simply knew how to enjoy the striving that occupies most of our time, as opposed to the ephemeral reaching of ends. It's simply not fair that Schopenhauer should impose his apparent malaise and effete inability to enjoy life on the rest of us, declaring unequivocally that life is futile. A concrete example of process trumping the goal is my marriage. Marrying my wife was a joyous, fun, brief occasion. But what I remember and appreciate most now, well after the wedding itself, is our relationship leading up to our wedding, the preparations we made for the wedding, the decision to get married, etc. And of course I continue to enjoy our marriage, day to day, without necessarily fulfilling any concrete goal beyond simply trying to be a good husband and loving my wife and accepting her love.
But let's say that I were to concede that all happiness truly does come from satisfying desires, and we could fit my claims from the prior paragraph into that mold. For instance, one could argue that even my enjoyment of everyday life is based on satisfying desires: “I feel like taking a shower now. I want to eat some ice cream. I desire to talk to my wife about the news.” Maybe it's fulfilling these little quotidian desires that allows me to enjoy just existing. But this framework also would disprove Schopenhauer's and Benatar's theses (but from a different angle), because if most of our desires are simply the little desires that help us decide what to do next (shower, eat, take a walk, go to work), then the majority of our desires are easily satisfiable and hence bring us happiness. Without getting into a Bentham-style accounting and counterweighing of standardized pleasures and pains, I think it would be obvious that if my day is a succession of little, satisfied desires, then even within Benatar's model of happiness's ultimately deriving from fulfilled wishes, the constant stream of satisfaction in my daily life would override my large-scale but infrequently-felt frustration at not being an astronaut. This would make my existence a net enjoyable experience.
We read, “To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person”, but that is just a supposition, a prejudice predicated on the supposedly inherent misery of life. Like Schopenhauer's sulking, this seems to me less a philosophy of arriving at the universal traits of life, but rather the mopey rant of someone with a public pulpit and a penchant for argumentation. As for his naïve nihilist's assertion that anyone not sharing his point of view is a Pollyanna, I think it's clear to most thinking people that self-absorbed, unfounded pessimism is no less silly than self-absorbed, unfounded cheeriness.
While Singer correctly notes that “everyone will suffer to some extent” in a life lived, it is not at all reasonable to assume that that suffering outweighs, overrides, or negates the pleasures that a person experiences. Or those that a person provides to others. People are not just solipsistic, morose psyches capably of little else than suffering or feeling pleasure (at least not where I'm from—I've never lived in Manhattan!); we also provide pleasure and pain to others. We create, we affect the world at the same time as we are affected by it. I assume that if human existence is sometimes miserable, it is due usually not to natural, external forces but to conditions created by other humans. If this is the case, then it is precisely humans that can improve life for others and for themselves, that can “fix” in their own little ways the occasional unpleasantnesses of human existence. So again, without getting too Benthamesque, perhaps the question shouldn't just be if the misery of the world will make a newborn suffer, but if that newborn, through its future actions or through its mere existence (which has value for those close to the child), will have an effect on the suffering or the misery of others. These positive effects of a newborn child affect not only other newborns and future Earth-dwellers, but those who already exist. So Singer's idea of avoiding a next generation to ease future suffering ignores that the next generation can itself ease present suffering.
I think that on this point we might see the largest divergence between a thinker of the rich world, steeped in a consuming, world-diminishing society, and a Third World thinker. Without getting too much into the themes of the environmental impacts of human existence (which Singer has wisely left out of the present discussion), one can still argue that a child born in the rich world has a pretty high likelihood of contributing to misery in his own country or others far away (through his consumption of goods produced under poor labor conditions, through his contribution to pollution and global warming that falls heaviest on us in the tropical countries, etc.). But the average Third World dweller, for instance, consumes few resources beyond his fair share, doesn't pay taxes to a government that wages war on other countries, produces many of the things he consumes, etc. So for a peasant in Colombia, who has the common sense to know that life is worth living and the generosity to bestow life on another, there is little need to wring his hands about the ill effects the child will bring to the world. Perhaps the cited philosophers would do well to explore this quaint conviction that people can create and improve the world as much as they can destroy. And the rest of us can try to conceive and raise children that see existence as a gift and that live accordingly, working to enjoy life and improve the world more than they degrade it.
My nod to the World Cup
Today begins the 2010 World Cup of soccer. I imagine Colombia is going to be swept up in a wave of collective television-watching for the new few weeks, even though our national team didn't make the cut.
I've never been much of a soccer fan. My upbringing in the US was influenced by our more typical sports--basketball especially, but also US football and a bit of baseball. In general though I've never liked watching sports as much as playing them.
All this said, I really enjoyed watching the occasional World Cup game in summer of 2006, when I was living in Spain. As I was finishing up my masters degree a few years ago, I made dreamy plans with fellow classmates from Africa that perhaps Caro and I could make a grand tour of southern Africa in 2010 and end up in South Africa to see some soccer. That's not going to happen, at least not this year, not this World Cup. I don't even know if I'll have time to watch much, but I'm sure many public spaces (stores, family get-togethers, etc.) will be filled with widescreen TVs blaring soccer matches, so I'll at least be able to follow the action from afar.
Anyway, I wanted to mark the occasion of this big event with an article from Raj Patel on South Africa's shantydwellers and their attempts to make themselves seen during this, South Africa's big PR blitz.
I've never been much of a soccer fan. My upbringing in the US was influenced by our more typical sports--basketball especially, but also US football and a bit of baseball. In general though I've never liked watching sports as much as playing them.
All this said, I really enjoyed watching the occasional World Cup game in summer of 2006, when I was living in Spain. As I was finishing up my masters degree a few years ago, I made dreamy plans with fellow classmates from Africa that perhaps Caro and I could make a grand tour of southern Africa in 2010 and end up in South Africa to see some soccer. That's not going to happen, at least not this year, not this World Cup. I don't even know if I'll have time to watch much, but I'm sure many public spaces (stores, family get-togethers, etc.) will be filled with widescreen TVs blaring soccer matches, so I'll at least be able to follow the action from afar.
Anyway, I wanted to mark the occasion of this big event with an article from Raj Patel on South Africa's shantydwellers and their attempts to make themselves seen during this, South Africa's big PR blitz.
Sweden's doing something right
I always feel sad when I think about the low birthrates in Europe. Imagine living in a society where there were few children, where people just didn't have the desire or the possibility to bring children into the world. To me that seems like a dying society. You can bring in immigrants, and that's a good thing for all parties, but collectively you'd still feel like a society in decline, importing others instead of reproducing yourselves.
This is an interesting article on Swedish laws allowing and even mandating fathers to take paternity leave when their kids are born. I am most intrigued by the fact that Sweden's socially progressive laws have led to higher birth rates for people. I understand that France, another strong welfare state, also has relatively high birth rates compared to other European countries.
So if Sweden is successfully providing a social safety net for its people and encouraging higher birth rates, that seems to me like a very good thing. And contrary to neoliberal dogma, the country's heavy taxation and strong welfare state aren't stifling economic growth. Add to that that the Swedish government contributes a much higher percentage of its GDP to international development, and it seems that Sweden's society is a model that many other countries would do well to imitate.
This is an interesting article on Swedish laws allowing and even mandating fathers to take paternity leave when their kids are born. I am most intrigued by the fact that Sweden's socially progressive laws have led to higher birth rates for people. I understand that France, another strong welfare state, also has relatively high birth rates compared to other European countries.
So if Sweden is successfully providing a social safety net for its people and encouraging higher birth rates, that seems to me like a very good thing. And contrary to neoliberal dogma, the country's heavy taxation and strong welfare state aren't stifling economic growth. Add to that that the Swedish government contributes a much higher percentage of its GDP to international development, and it seems that Sweden's society is a model that many other countries would do well to imitate.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Follow-up to yesterday's Colombia articles
Well yesterday the penal courts finally condemned ex-Colonel Luis Alfonso Plazas Vega for his role in masterminding the disappearance of 11 civilians and guerrillas during the Palace of Justice conflagration in 1985. These people were shown to have left the Palace alive, were taken to a nearby museum to be held, and then the General's tank brigade took them to their base in the north of Bogota to be tortured and executed.
So after two years of trial with many attempted interruptions, threats on the judge's life, etc., this son of a bitch Plazas will be sent to prison for 30 years, where he belongs.
In typical fashion, president Uribe says he is sad about the conviction. He says that the destruction of the Palace of Justice was really the fault of narcotraffickers and guerrillas, and that instead justice is condemning a noble soldier who was just doing his job. Many ex-generals have echoed this line. Once again this implies that Uribe and the generals see extrajudicial killings as within the purview of the Armed Forces. Or is Uribe just worried that the achievement of justice in this case (and the call to continue investigating those higher up the chain of command in 1985, including even the then-president) portends ill for him in the similar investigations into the more recent "false positives"?
False positives "is the term used in Colombia to refer to cases in which soldiers abducted and executed civilians and then presented them to their superiors as rebels killed in combat to earn promotions, bonuses and extra leave," according to this article by the Latin American Herald. “Victims were generally lured under false pretenses by a ‘recruiter’ to a remote location and then killed by soldiers who reported that there was a ‘death in combat,’ and took steps to manipulate and cover-up the crime scene,” describes a 2009 UN fact-finding mission.
The Herald article details that the Attorney General has recently launched a preliminary investigation into former defense minister Camilo Ospina and outgoing armed forces chief Freddy Padilla de Leon for the false positive killings. Ospina is implicated for his 2005 directive offering incentives for guerrilla deaths, which was the motivation at the root of the false positives scandal. He was then replaced by Juan Manuel Santos, who is now the frontrunner for the June 20 presidential elections! Of the 2272 such extrajudicial executions documented by the courts, 1200 occurred under Santos's watch. But he is not being investigated, at least not yet. Once again, Uribe has stated his dismay at the preliminary investigations, claiming that investigating Padilla is a blow to the morale of the Armed Forces. Santos has called the call for justice "moral terrorism" and treason, which he says is sometimes worse than the terrorism of violence and bullets.
Another typical, chilling twist is that Ospina was proposed last year among the short list of three candidates for the position of Attorney General! This is yet another controversy, in which instead of fulfilling his duty as president to propose to the Supreme Court three qualified candidates for Attorney General, Uribe cynically proposed three poorly-qualified personal allies, thus forcing the Court to refuse to choose any of them and throwing a wrench into what should have been a mundane bureaucratic procedure.
It's obvious that right now is a critical moment for Colombia, on many fronts. The Courts are bravely trying to promote the rule of law by prosecuting human rights criminals, and are indeed having some success of late. But the executive branch and the military are trying to hinder justice at every turn, with threats both veiled and explicit, public and hidden, attempts to seed the Courts with thugs friendly to them, and with a general campaign of delegitimation of the justice system. The seemingly inevitable election of Santos to the presidency means that the Courts face at least four more years of staunch opposition from the Executive and his powerful coalition. Will the Courts succeed in visiting justice upon all those who have bloodied their hands in Colombia's recent history? Especially interesting will be to see if charges are pressed against Uribe and Santos for paramilitarism, extrajudicial killings, and narcotrafficking. If so, it would be a tribute to the power of justice even in the face of charismatic caudillos. If not, we may head into a very dark period here in Colombia. More impunity, more paramilitarism, more leaning towards one-party dictatorship.
So after two years of trial with many attempted interruptions, threats on the judge's life, etc., this son of a bitch Plazas will be sent to prison for 30 years, where he belongs.
In typical fashion, president Uribe says he is sad about the conviction. He says that the destruction of the Palace of Justice was really the fault of narcotraffickers and guerrillas, and that instead justice is condemning a noble soldier who was just doing his job. Many ex-generals have echoed this line. Once again this implies that Uribe and the generals see extrajudicial killings as within the purview of the Armed Forces. Or is Uribe just worried that the achievement of justice in this case (and the call to continue investigating those higher up the chain of command in 1985, including even the then-president) portends ill for him in the similar investigations into the more recent "false positives"?
False positives "is the term used in Colombia to refer to cases in which soldiers abducted and executed civilians and then presented them to their superiors as rebels killed in combat to earn promotions, bonuses and extra leave," according to this article by the Latin American Herald. “Victims were generally lured under false pretenses by a ‘recruiter’ to a remote location and then killed by soldiers who reported that there was a ‘death in combat,’ and took steps to manipulate and cover-up the crime scene,” describes a 2009 UN fact-finding mission.
The Herald article details that the Attorney General has recently launched a preliminary investigation into former defense minister Camilo Ospina and outgoing armed forces chief Freddy Padilla de Leon for the false positive killings. Ospina is implicated for his 2005 directive offering incentives for guerrilla deaths, which was the motivation at the root of the false positives scandal. He was then replaced by Juan Manuel Santos, who is now the frontrunner for the June 20 presidential elections! Of the 2272 such extrajudicial executions documented by the courts, 1200 occurred under Santos's watch. But he is not being investigated, at least not yet. Once again, Uribe has stated his dismay at the preliminary investigations, claiming that investigating Padilla is a blow to the morale of the Armed Forces. Santos has called the call for justice "moral terrorism" and treason, which he says is sometimes worse than the terrorism of violence and bullets.
Another typical, chilling twist is that Ospina was proposed last year among the short list of three candidates for the position of Attorney General! This is yet another controversy, in which instead of fulfilling his duty as president to propose to the Supreme Court three qualified candidates for Attorney General, Uribe cynically proposed three poorly-qualified personal allies, thus forcing the Court to refuse to choose any of them and throwing a wrench into what should have been a mundane bureaucratic procedure.
It's obvious that right now is a critical moment for Colombia, on many fronts. The Courts are bravely trying to promote the rule of law by prosecuting human rights criminals, and are indeed having some success of late. But the executive branch and the military are trying to hinder justice at every turn, with threats both veiled and explicit, public and hidden, attempts to seed the Courts with thugs friendly to them, and with a general campaign of delegitimation of the justice system. The seemingly inevitable election of Santos to the presidency means that the Courts face at least four more years of staunch opposition from the Executive and his powerful coalition. Will the Courts succeed in visiting justice upon all those who have bloodied their hands in Colombia's recent history? Especially interesting will be to see if charges are pressed against Uribe and Santos for paramilitarism, extrajudicial killings, and narcotrafficking. If so, it would be a tribute to the power of justice even in the face of charismatic caudillos. If not, we may head into a very dark period here in Colombia. More impunity, more paramilitarism, more leaning towards one-party dictatorship.