September 18, 2006
It’s a rare occasion when Cameroon makes the news. As those of you who read the New York Times know, one of its columnists, Nicholas Kristof, was in Cameroon last week with the winner of his contest to go on a reporting trip to Africa – a journalism student named Casey Parks.
By the way, only members of the infinitely lame TimesSelect club can read her dispatches and his blog. On the other hand, Kristof wrote a column for the Sunday Times about maternal health in Cameroon and the developing world as a whole. It was a beautiful column about the struggles of women to give birth safely – a struggle far too many lose. (I’d put a link to this, but TimesSelect is so lame I’m not sure anyone would be able to read it. The only reason Bec and I can is Jude Stich lets us use her account, and I don’t want to abuse it. The column appeared on Sept. 17, yesterday, for anyone who is curious.)
The story also touched on the lack of hospitals in eastern Cameroon, the lack of roads and the lack of decent services provided by the government. The Bush Administration rightly comes in for criticism for its policies – specifically cutting off funding to the U.N. Population Fund because of false accusations that the fund supports abortions in China.
But I think that Kristof and Parks, who I give more of a pass since this is her first international reporting trip, miss the central story of Cameroon – and I’m sure that regular readers will know what I’m talking about: corruption and governance.
There are some countries – the Central African Republic, Kristof’s next stop, for example – where foreign assistance is far more justified in the health sector. In Cameroon, it’s just not. Despite qualifying for World Bank and IMF debt relief under the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, Cameroon isn’t even ranked as a poor country by most international measures. It’s technically a lower-middle class country. The need for aid is almost a choice – like when I decided I would get the lowest grade possible on the calculus AP exam and worked hard to learn nothing all year.
Let me make an analogy that might make more sense. Let’s say Cameroon was a family of four in the United States. If its finances were managed well, the family would need some help putting the two kids through college – a Pell Grant and student loans maybe. It wouldn’t need welfare or food stamps to survive every day.
But that’s precisely what Cameroon gets, and it’s only because the country’s leaders don’t manage the country’s resources in a public-spirited manner. I won’t even say they don’t manage them well. Their management works perfectly well for them, as the flashy suits and cars on display in Yaoundé can attest. But it doesn’t provide the necessary services poor women need to survive childbirth. Instead, because the UNFPA and other organizations are there to try to pick up the slack, the government can continue along its merry way – with hundreds of thousands of ghost employees, massive SUVs and without building anything.
Kristof touches on this a bit – he refers to the patient’s family being shaken down to provide care and the doctor going home rather than perform an emergency caesarian. He also touches on the lack of a clean blood supply – Kristof and his photographer bravely donated their own. He also writes about how governments around the world neglect poor, rural women. All of that is true.
But it all sounds like he’s saying it’s the Bush Administration’s fault. They’re wrong for cutting off funds to the UNFPA. They’re an important organization. But the government in Cameroon is far more wrong for stealing money rather than caring for its citizens, especially those of a different ethnic, tribal or linguistic group.
I’m not writing this because the Times crew didn’t have time to squeeze Bec and I in for a drink on their brief visit to Yaoundé. Nor am I writing this because on their blogs, both Kristof and Parks write about problems with satellite phones and guys who are supposed to pick up tickets for them at the airport and I wish I had these problems. I’m writing this because I think it leaves out the single most important issue in Cameroon.
……….
And while I’m attacking established battleships with my peashooter, I was reading an article from the Aug. 28 New Yorker by Malcolm Gladwell (hey, I live in Cameroon. My magazines come late. I’m still waiting for my 2006 Hockey News Fantasy Guide. I’d better get it soon; the draft is fast approaching). The article, The Risk Pool , goes into the problems with health care in America, as well as why Ireland and East Asia developed and Africa, for the most part, has not.
To summarize, since the link is helpfully provided, it all comes down to demographics. Along with liberalization, Ireland became prosperous as a result of allowing birth control. As a result, there was a higher ratio of workers to dependents – the very young and the very old – who needed government and pension assistance. To Gladwell and the economists, this goes a long way to explaining why companies like GM and Bethlehem Steel – which provide health care and pensions to their workers individually rather than in a pool with other companies – are in trouble. In short, they don’t have enough people working to provide for the number of retired workers to whom they provide benefits. All the economic restructuring in the world won’t fix the problem – in fact, streamlining may make it worse.
At the same time, Gladwell and his beloved economists use this argument to explain why Africa hasn’t developed. In Africa, they argue, there is a 1-to-1 ratio of young, able-bodied worker to child or elderly dependent. So there’s no room for growth. In East Asia, on the other hand, there is a ratio of 1-to-2.5 healthy workers to dependants.
Fine. Gladwell then argues that rather than some loaded cultural explanation, this demographic fact is the main reason why East Asia’s economy has moved steadily forward while Africa’s hasn’t. Improving the ratio doesn’t make economic success “inevitable. But, given a reasonably functional economic and political infrastructure, it certainly makes it a lot easier,” he writes.
In some parts of Africa, this may well be true. In South Africa, which has the most developed economy on the continent and whose international corporations are fast becoming some of the biggest and most powerful in the world (the Miller Brewing company is owned by a South African brewer), the staggering AIDS rate may work as an anchor on the country’s economy. AIDS, primarily a young-person’s disease, is wiping out the productive sector of South African society. As there are fewer workers to provide for the dependants, there may well be a severe pension and health care crunch. (It doesn’t help that the South African government thinks giving people lemon and garlic is the way to treat AIDS, not drugs.)
In the rest of the continent, though, that throwaway line about “a reasonably functional economy and political infrastructure” is a big matzo ball hanging there. Gladwell doesn’t appear to be taking into account that Japan, the first of the East Asian growth stories, was never colonized. Sure, Commodore Matthew C. Perry showed up at Yokohama somewhat unannounced and told the Japanese to open up, but really, that wasn’t colonization. Japan had a strong industrial base. They had beaten the Russians and then took over most of East Asia during World War II. Rebuilding an industrial base is far easier than what Africa is trying to do.
South Korea developed by first producing things cheap, then by growing its own companies, all under the tender eye of a violent military dictatorship until the last decade or so. Thailand has had an enlightened king and also was never colonized the way Africa was. The Chinese are basically following the South Korean model, only at a vastly magnified scale. For the most part, these countries have always been in search of natural resources and have had to develop their economies in order to provide anything for their people. Are they free of corruption? Far from it.
Africa, on the other hand, is a natural resource producer, so unless there is enlightened leadership that wants to develop an economy, the elites in society who have access to the resources will always be taken care of. And that leads to sclerosis in economic development, which leads to unemployment (Cameroon has at least 30 percent official unemployment), which leads to people being unable to take care of themselves.
The elites then create political systems to maintain their dominance. No demographic shift is going to change that. It would help – women in Cameroon have on average around 5 children and Rwandan women around 5.5 – but it’s not the panacea Gladwell and his sources think.
…………………
From the Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions department (thanks, Mad Magazine):
I went to take a taxi the other day to the Ministry of Justice to meet the spokesman. None of the taxis wanted to take me, and the drivers who did stop often asked how much I wanted to pay. The rate is 200 francs in town, with a little higher or lower depending on distance. My ride should cost 200 francs.
When one of the taxis tried to get me to pay more, I said, “Hey, it’s close.”
“Well, if it’s close, you can walk,” he said, and sped off.
I did, however, end up paying only 200 francs.
Power was out in most of Yaoundé almost all of Saturday. So was water. Bec and I are lucky. We have a generator and water tanks. But the water was out for so long – probably most of Friday – the tanks were pretty much empty. Our landlord, a Cameroonian, came by Saturday evening to tell us what was going on and ask us to conserve water.
When I asked what the problem was, he said, “It’s Cameroon. Nothing really works here.”
………………….
I enjoy using the blog to counter arguments. The best part is none of the writers I’m challenging will see my little bit of cyberspace. So, to paraphrase Mr. T, at “Another Day in Shrimpistan,” fools will not go unpitied and jibber-jabber will not go unchallenged, at least not in too great a forum.
Aren’t I brave?
On another note, I sometimes feel like a broken record. So if I’m boring let me know. Or if you feel the need to challenge my jibber-jabber or pity my foolishness, use the comments section. I like feedback. I want to know what you all think,
Now get back to work.
It’s a rare occasion when Cameroon makes the news. As those of you who read the New York Times know, one of its columnists, Nicholas Kristof, was in Cameroon last week with the winner of his contest to go on a reporting trip to Africa – a journalism student named Casey Parks.
By the way, only members of the infinitely lame TimesSelect club can read her dispatches and his blog. On the other hand, Kristof wrote a column for the Sunday Times about maternal health in Cameroon and the developing world as a whole. It was a beautiful column about the struggles of women to give birth safely – a struggle far too many lose. (I’d put a link to this, but TimesSelect is so lame I’m not sure anyone would be able to read it. The only reason Bec and I can is Jude Stich lets us use her account, and I don’t want to abuse it. The column appeared on Sept. 17, yesterday, for anyone who is curious.)
The story also touched on the lack of hospitals in eastern Cameroon, the lack of roads and the lack of decent services provided by the government. The Bush Administration rightly comes in for criticism for its policies – specifically cutting off funding to the U.N. Population Fund because of false accusations that the fund supports abortions in China.
But I think that Kristof and Parks, who I give more of a pass since this is her first international reporting trip, miss the central story of Cameroon – and I’m sure that regular readers will know what I’m talking about: corruption and governance.
There are some countries – the Central African Republic, Kristof’s next stop, for example – where foreign assistance is far more justified in the health sector. In Cameroon, it’s just not. Despite qualifying for World Bank and IMF debt relief under the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, Cameroon isn’t even ranked as a poor country by most international measures. It’s technically a lower-middle class country. The need for aid is almost a choice – like when I decided I would get the lowest grade possible on the calculus AP exam and worked hard to learn nothing all year.
Let me make an analogy that might make more sense. Let’s say Cameroon was a family of four in the United States. If its finances were managed well, the family would need some help putting the two kids through college – a Pell Grant and student loans maybe. It wouldn’t need welfare or food stamps to survive every day.
But that’s precisely what Cameroon gets, and it’s only because the country’s leaders don’t manage the country’s resources in a public-spirited manner. I won’t even say they don’t manage them well. Their management works perfectly well for them, as the flashy suits and cars on display in Yaoundé can attest. But it doesn’t provide the necessary services poor women need to survive childbirth. Instead, because the UNFPA and other organizations are there to try to pick up the slack, the government can continue along its merry way – with hundreds of thousands of ghost employees, massive SUVs and without building anything.
Kristof touches on this a bit – he refers to the patient’s family being shaken down to provide care and the doctor going home rather than perform an emergency caesarian. He also touches on the lack of a clean blood supply – Kristof and his photographer bravely donated their own. He also writes about how governments around the world neglect poor, rural women. All of that is true.
But it all sounds like he’s saying it’s the Bush Administration’s fault. They’re wrong for cutting off funds to the UNFPA. They’re an important organization. But the government in Cameroon is far more wrong for stealing money rather than caring for its citizens, especially those of a different ethnic, tribal or linguistic group.
I’m not writing this because the Times crew didn’t have time to squeeze Bec and I in for a drink on their brief visit to Yaoundé. Nor am I writing this because on their blogs, both Kristof and Parks write about problems with satellite phones and guys who are supposed to pick up tickets for them at the airport and I wish I had these problems. I’m writing this because I think it leaves out the single most important issue in Cameroon.
……….
And while I’m attacking established battleships with my peashooter, I was reading an article from the Aug. 28 New Yorker by Malcolm Gladwell (hey, I live in Cameroon. My magazines come late. I’m still waiting for my 2006 Hockey News Fantasy Guide. I’d better get it soon; the draft is fast approaching). The article, The Risk Pool , goes into the problems with health care in America, as well as why Ireland and East Asia developed and Africa, for the most part, has not.
To summarize, since the link is helpfully provided, it all comes down to demographics. Along with liberalization, Ireland became prosperous as a result of allowing birth control. As a result, there was a higher ratio of workers to dependents – the very young and the very old – who needed government and pension assistance. To Gladwell and the economists, this goes a long way to explaining why companies like GM and Bethlehem Steel – which provide health care and pensions to their workers individually rather than in a pool with other companies – are in trouble. In short, they don’t have enough people working to provide for the number of retired workers to whom they provide benefits. All the economic restructuring in the world won’t fix the problem – in fact, streamlining may make it worse.
At the same time, Gladwell and his beloved economists use this argument to explain why Africa hasn’t developed. In Africa, they argue, there is a 1-to-1 ratio of young, able-bodied worker to child or elderly dependent. So there’s no room for growth. In East Asia, on the other hand, there is a ratio of 1-to-2.5 healthy workers to dependants.
Fine. Gladwell then argues that rather than some loaded cultural explanation, this demographic fact is the main reason why East Asia’s economy has moved steadily forward while Africa’s hasn’t. Improving the ratio doesn’t make economic success “inevitable. But, given a reasonably functional economic and political infrastructure, it certainly makes it a lot easier,” he writes.
In some parts of Africa, this may well be true. In South Africa, which has the most developed economy on the continent and whose international corporations are fast becoming some of the biggest and most powerful in the world (the Miller Brewing company is owned by a South African brewer), the staggering AIDS rate may work as an anchor on the country’s economy. AIDS, primarily a young-person’s disease, is wiping out the productive sector of South African society. As there are fewer workers to provide for the dependants, there may well be a severe pension and health care crunch. (It doesn’t help that the South African government thinks giving people lemon and garlic is the way to treat AIDS, not drugs.)
In the rest of the continent, though, that throwaway line about “a reasonably functional economy and political infrastructure” is a big matzo ball hanging there. Gladwell doesn’t appear to be taking into account that Japan, the first of the East Asian growth stories, was never colonized. Sure, Commodore Matthew C. Perry showed up at Yokohama somewhat unannounced and told the Japanese to open up, but really, that wasn’t colonization. Japan had a strong industrial base. They had beaten the Russians and then took over most of East Asia during World War II. Rebuilding an industrial base is far easier than what Africa is trying to do.
South Korea developed by first producing things cheap, then by growing its own companies, all under the tender eye of a violent military dictatorship until the last decade or so. Thailand has had an enlightened king and also was never colonized the way Africa was. The Chinese are basically following the South Korean model, only at a vastly magnified scale. For the most part, these countries have always been in search of natural resources and have had to develop their economies in order to provide anything for their people. Are they free of corruption? Far from it.
Africa, on the other hand, is a natural resource producer, so unless there is enlightened leadership that wants to develop an economy, the elites in society who have access to the resources will always be taken care of. And that leads to sclerosis in economic development, which leads to unemployment (Cameroon has at least 30 percent official unemployment), which leads to people being unable to take care of themselves.
The elites then create political systems to maintain their dominance. No demographic shift is going to change that. It would help – women in Cameroon have on average around 5 children and Rwandan women around 5.5 – but it’s not the panacea Gladwell and his sources think.
…………………
From the Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions department (thanks, Mad Magazine):
I went to take a taxi the other day to the Ministry of Justice to meet the spokesman. None of the taxis wanted to take me, and the drivers who did stop often asked how much I wanted to pay. The rate is 200 francs in town, with a little higher or lower depending on distance. My ride should cost 200 francs.
When one of the taxis tried to get me to pay more, I said, “Hey, it’s close.”
“Well, if it’s close, you can walk,” he said, and sped off.
I did, however, end up paying only 200 francs.
Power was out in most of Yaoundé almost all of Saturday. So was water. Bec and I are lucky. We have a generator and water tanks. But the water was out for so long – probably most of Friday – the tanks were pretty much empty. Our landlord, a Cameroonian, came by Saturday evening to tell us what was going on and ask us to conserve water.
When I asked what the problem was, he said, “It’s Cameroon. Nothing really works here.”
………………….
I enjoy using the blog to counter arguments. The best part is none of the writers I’m challenging will see my little bit of cyberspace. So, to paraphrase Mr. T, at “Another Day in Shrimpistan,” fools will not go unpitied and jibber-jabber will not go unchallenged, at least not in too great a forum.
Aren’t I brave?
On another note, I sometimes feel like a broken record. So if I’m boring let me know. Or if you feel the need to challenge my jibber-jabber or pity my foolishness, use the comments section. I like feedback. I want to know what you all think,
Now get back to work.
posted by Evan Weinberger at 7:39 AM
1 Comments:
In the Revelation written by Apostle John. It says the image of the beast would be given a voice.
NGO, s with the Department of Information have given the UN a voice .Including the Watchtower Society.
I want to thanks for this blog author for share huge information about government grant help. Everybody wants to new start a in life after trouble and want to come out from current position. So government decide to give a grant for them and i am just a part of provide a grant in USA with government.
http://www.government-grant.us
Government grant
Post a Comment
<< Home