World hunger

[Matteo Martini]

Hi all,
just would like to get some answer to a simple ( but for me not-so-simple ) question: why there are still under-developed nations in the world ??
I mean, with all the progress that is going on in the world, hunger has ended in Europe, in the U. S., in Australia and other nations about 200 years ago, or at least 100 years ago ( not conuting war times, of course ).
Why are African nations ( but not only African nations, and not all the African nations ) still underdeveloped ??
I can not find a proper answer to this:
1) African nations are just coming out from colonialism, so it takes time to get a democratic government and to have a good economy.
Reply: many colonial contries got the indipendence some 50 years ago, some other countries even earlier, why are they are still underdeveloped ??
I mean, it took not more than five years for most European countries to recover from WWII.
2) African countries are at war one against each other, this is why they do not develop
Reply: not all the African coutries are at war, but also peaceful countries are not getting developed
3) Racist explanation: some " races " are better than others
Reply: I do not even consider this kind of explanation
4) Multinational companies are exploring poor African countries
Reply: this seems a kind-of conspiracy theory, and I can not find evidence for this
5) African people do not have the mentality of entrepreneurship ( did I spell it right ?? ) and of free market, they do not have the right " mentality "
Reply: we all want to live better, Italians, Americans, Africans. So why is not Mali developing while the Western countries are ??
6) Because in Africa there is malaria, AIDS, etc.
Reply: there are diseases all over the world, not only in Africa, so even if this is one reason, I do not think it is the only reason

Other explanations ??

P.S.
" Bonus " question: if the average American spends 4887 $ yearly for his health and his/her average expected life at birth is of 74,6 years ( men ) and 79,8 years ( women ), why in Cyprus, with a yearly expenditure per capita of only 941 $ for health, the average life expectancy at birth is more or less the same ??
And in the Nederlands, with an average expenditure for health per person of about 2600 $, life expectancy at birth is about 1 year more than life expectancy at birth in the U. S. ??
The data come from the World Health Organization

 

[shanek]

Because their governments are oppressive. Especially in Africa, where so many places seem to be at the mercy of warlords fighting it out for turf. They take everything for themselves and leave the people with nothing.

 

[kimiko]

just would like to get some answer to a simple ( but for me not-so-simple ) question: why there are still under-developed nations in the world ??
this is why they do not develop

5) African people do not have the mentality of entrepreneurship ( did I spell it right ?? ) and of free market, they do not have the right " mentality "
Reply: we all want to live better, Italians, Americans, Africans. So why is not Mali developing while the Western countries are ??

P.S.
" Bonus " question: if the average American spends 4887 $ yearly for his health and his/her average expected life at birth is of 74,6 years ( men ) and 79,8 years ( women ), why in Cyprus, with a yearly expenditure per capita of only 941 $ for health, the average life expectancy at birth is more or less the same ??
And in the Nederlands, with an average expenditure for health per person of about 2600 $, life expectancy at birth is about 1 year more than life expectancy at birth in the U. S. ??
The data come from the World Health Organization

That's a really good question! The only comment I have is for #5. If entrepreneurship is the application of certain business strategies, it is possible that not many people know what these are and are implementing them. Using effective advertising, etc.

For the bonus question, I would first suspect differences in lifestyle and genetic susceptibilities.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Because their governments are oppressive. Especially in Africa, where so many places seem to be at the mercy of warlords fighting it out for turf. They take everything for themselves and leave the people with nothing

That could be a very interesting explanation, but then the question is: why if there is a democracy, people do not vote for the right candidate ? Why do they let their government behave like that ?
I mean, why such things happen in Angola and not, for example, in England ??

That's a really good question!

I was scared that all the JREF forum could laugh at my naive question

If entrepreneurship is the application of certain business strategies, it is possible that not many people know what these are and are implementing them. Using effective advertising, etc.

I now many people in Italy who made a BIG pot of money and did not study anything about marketing ..
Moreover, you can buy books about marketing from anywhere in the world.

For the bonus question, I would first suspect differences in lifestyle and genetic susceptibilities

That could be an explanation, however, I do not know if it really is the major factor. I looked at the situation in Italy, life expectancy here is about one 1/2 year more than that in the U.S. and we spend one third for health care than the U.S. ( per person )
I do not know if genetic differences account for that much.
By the way, the majority of the U.S. is white caucasian, like in Italy and in the Nederlands, so we should have similar genes

 

[shuize]

Psst. The reason the west has generally done better can be summed up in two quick points:

1) Respect for private property

2) The rule of law.

Pass it on.

 

[swstephe]

obviously, you don't agree with your own list, but allow me to expand on them:

African nations are just coming out from colonialism, so it takes time to get a democratic government and to have a good economy.
Reply: many colonial contries got the indipendence some 50 years ago, some other countries even earlier, why are they are still underdeveloped ??
I mean, it took not more than five years for most European countries to recover from WWII.

the colonial powers in those countries didn't rate bringing the local population as highly as exploting their labor and natural resources. when they left, unlike wwii, those same colonial powers didn't feel a pressing need to rehabilitate or secure the population.

African countries are at war one against each other, this is why they do not develop
Reply: not all the African coutries are at war, but also peaceful countries are not getting developed

war and insecurity definitely has an impact, as does corruption and crime.

Racist explanation: some " races " are better than others Reply: I do not even consider this kind of explanation

perhaps you should look at the flip-side of racism. you mentioned that there was *no* hunger in western countries. that is not entirely true. there is definitely hunger, and it is often race-related. there are statistics that 46% of african-american and 40% of asian-american children, (their terms, not mine), in the usa are considered at "hunger levels": reference

Multinational companies are exploring poor African countries Reply: this seems a kind-of conspiracy theory, and I can not find evidence for this

it is a conspiracy if they had planned to do this kind of thing, but it is probably more of just a relative lack-of-interest in solving this huge problem. but it is not just multinational companies in foreign countries, but often the local management and government as well. remember those stories of 6-year-old kids making shoes for american and european markets that they could never afford to wear?

African people do not have the mentality of entrepreneurship ( did I spell it right ?? ) and of free market, they do not have the right " mentality "
Reply: we all want to live better, Italians, Americans, Africans. So why is not Mali developing while the Western countries are ??

i think (facetiously), being a warlord is pretty enterprising. but it is a social-econimic fact that the nice guys usually get killed by the more ruthless competition.

Because in Africa there is malaria, AIDS, etc.
Reply: there are diseases all over the world, not only in Africa, so even if this is one reason, I do not think it is the only reason

they usually come in a group, sickness and hunger have similar cause and effect.

P.S.
" Bonus " question: if the average American spends 4887 $ yearly for his health and his/her average expected life at birth is of 74,6 years ( men ) and 79,8 years ( women ), why in Cyprus, with a yearly expenditure per capita of only 941 $ for health, the average life expectancy at birth is more or less the same ??
And in the Nederlands, with an average expenditure for health per person of about 2600 $, life expectancy at birth is about 1 year more than life expectancy at birth in the U. S. ??

probably a combination of factors, including the lack of socialized medicine, the lifestyle and diet of the people.

 

[Drooper]

My 2 cents:

The reason for widespread African depravation:

- War
- Corruption
- Poor governance

Why these occurred will keep you arguing for hours.


Sceond issue. Wealth and life expectancy.

That is easy. There are diminishing returns. Once you reach a certain (not particularly high) level of affluence you knock out the major causes of reduced life expectancy (mainly infant mortaality related to hygene, clean water etc.).

After that the underlying social, cultural and genetic drivers of mortality dominate. Example, saturated fat eating, high calory consuming Americans don't do as well as rice and fish eating Japanese.

 

[shanek]

That could be a very interesting explanation, but then the question is: why if there is a democracy, people do not vote for the right candidate ? Why do they let their government behave like that ?

Democracy is like a dictatorship; the only difference is the number of dictators. If the "majority" (which is rarely an actual majority of the population" can vote benefits for themselves, even at the expense of others, they'll do so. It can become a tyranny just as easily if not moreso than a dictatorship.

I mean, why such things happen in Angola and not, for example, in England ??

England at least has the concept of Constitutional limitation of government, even though that's not codified anywhere.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Drooper
- War
- Corruption
- Poor governance

Yes, Yes and Yes.

The biggest current issue is that Western economic policies could not be better design ensure the continuation of poverty in developing nations. Basically our tariffs, subsidies and trade policies are designed to prevent exports of everything that they can produce competitively. Our highly subsidized farmers not only prevent African nations from exporting in the industry where they can most use the cheap labor to advantage but we also flood their countries with cheap agriculture product preventing them from creating domestic competitiors. Ditto the textile industries.

A few other factors:
1) Many of the "nations" are not nations in the sense of common identity. The tribes/enthnicities were carved up in a manner to make it easier for the colonialist to rule not for self rule. The colonialists frequently had a divide and conquer mentality which meant when independence came, there was great animosity between groups.
2) The colonialist set up very centralized government which is not appropriate for a poor country (or any country actually). It also led to the despots so common. Also post WWII, the European intellectuals were enamored with socialism and communism and tried to leave this "ideal" in the wake.
3) Geography does play a role. Read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel.
4) Cold world politics which enabled strong men to play off the East and West.

CBL

 

[Ziggurat]

Hi all,
just would like to get some answer to a simple ( but for me not-so-simple ) question: why there are still under-developed nations in the world ??

Here's a rather good essay on the topic:
http://www.electricminds.org/ussclueless/external/Peters01.html

"National success is eccentric. But national failure is programmed and predictable. Spotting the future losers among the world's states becomes so easy it loses its entertainment value."

The essay outlines seven factors:

# Restrictions on the free flow of information.
# The subjugation of women.
# Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
# The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
# Domination by a restrictive religion.
# A low valuation of education.
# Low prestige assigned to work.

Africa has these problems in spades (though not all of them apply everywhere).

 

[AWPrime]

Is a end to world hunger a good thing?

 

[Ladewig]

Let me preface my remark by saying I know less than I would like to about the issues. (aka I am shooting from the hip)

I suspect that warfare plays a factor even in countries that are not engaging in warfare because of the flow of refugees across borders.

 

[Drooper]

Yes, Yes and Yes.

The biggest current issue is that Western economic policies could not be better design ensure the continuation of poverty in developing nations. Basically our tariffs, subsidies and trade policies are designed to prevent exports of everything that they can produce competitively. Our highly subsidized farmers not only prevent African nations from exporting in the industry where they can most use the cheap labor to advantage but we also flood their countries with cheap agriculture product preventing them from creating domestic competitiors. Ditto the textile industries.

A few other factors:
1) Many of the "nations" are not nations in the sense of common identity. The tribes/enthnicities were carved up in a manner to make it easier for the colonialist to rule not for self rule. The colonialists frequently had a divide and conquer mentality which meant when independence came, there was great animosity between groups.
2) The colonialist set up very centralized government which is not appropriate for a poor country (or any country actually). It also led to the despots so common. Also post WWII, the European intellectuals were enamored with socialism and communism and tried to leave this "ideal" in the wake.
3) Geography does play a role. Read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel.
4) Cold world politics which enabled strong men to play off the East and West.

CBL

Can't say I disagree with any of that.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Just two answers before starting to write:

Is a end to world hunger a good thing?

Yes.

Democracy is like a dictatorship; the only difference is the number of dictators

Everybody is a dictator = there are no dictators !!

Everybody here says that the reason why some parts of the world are still underdeveloped are:

" # Restrictions on the free flow of information.
# The subjugation of women.
# Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
# The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
# Domination by a restrictive religion.
# A low valuation of education.
# Low prestige assigned to work "

or

" - War
- Corruption
- Poor governance "

or similar answers.

However, this was the case of Eurpean countries in the XVII century.
In the 1600s, Eurpean countries were ruled by kings, there was no democracy, and:
- epidemics of mortal diseases were comparable ( if not even worse ) to what is happening in Africe today: the epidemics of " peste bubbonica " ( sorry, I can not translate this in English, however, it is a kind of cholera-disease ) killed one third or more of the total European population of the time, people died of " flu " in those ages
- There was no free information in Europe at that time, Galileo was convicted for saying that Earth was spinning around the sun and you could go to jail for critizising the " status quo " of power even in the late 1800s ( many socialists went to jail for this )
- " The subjugation of women ", exaclty the same thing which happened in Europe until the early 1900s, women has few rights, could not even vote.
- " Domination by a restrictive religion " ?? Let' s talk about the role of Catholic Church in France, Spain and Italy, in the XVII, XVIII and XIX centuries ?? State and Religion were connected and the king got his role directly from God.
- " Low prestige assigned to work ", in France people were paid salaries barely enough not to die of starving til the beginning of this century; during the industrial revolution ( the first one ) in England they put kinds of 9 or 10 year-old to work 12 or more hours per day.
- " War ", this is not a prerogative of the African countries, unfortunately, during the XVII, XVIII centuries there were wars that wounded Europe and lasted decades;

This is to prove that epidemic diseases, hunger, restictive role of religion, corruption, no free flow of information, subjugation of women, etc. were commonly found here in Europe in the 1600s.
However, decade after decade things change, Newton wrote his three laws of dynamics, Pascal discovered his laws, Copernicus found out that it is the Earth which spins around the Sun, ..
And during the 1700s, in the second half of the XVIII century, the Englightment came in, men ( at least, men of some culture ) found out that it is possible to know more about how the nature works which the scientific method.
In 1789 something incredible happened, the population of Paris, tired of poor economic and working conditions, got its destiny in its hands, killed the King and the Queen.
Nothing like that has ever happened before, the world changed dramatically after this.
Then other revolutions came in 1848, countries acquired a " national status ", Germany became Germany, Italy became Italy, Maxwell wrote his equations, people fought for freedom of expression and speech, Otto and Diesel built the first internal combustion engine, etc.
With the mechanization of agriculture, food produciton grew dramatically, new discoveries in medicine helped to reduce mortality at birth, ..

This is a very badly done, very short and probably incorrect in many points resume of modern history.

Just to point out that the economic and techonological situation 400 years ago was not that different between Europe, America and Africa.
But Europe and America evolved while Africa did not.
Consider that economic and technological development in Africa today should be easier than what it took to European countries to become " developed ", African countries do not have to discover how to build a car or a plane, just copy.

So, why is not it happening ??

Other explanations I could provide:

- Like each person is different from the other, each population has typical characteristics, for example, they say that Germans like order, Italians are passionate and confusing, japanese are " hard-workers ", etc.
Despite all stereotypes, it could be true that each population has some disctinctive character.
Maybe African populations live their lives differently, they do not care as much as we care about " living better ", maybe our continuos efforts to " live better " are just our " character " and other populations do not care that much.
Yes, I recognize that this explanation does not make much sense !!

- Climate: you see that all the developed contries live in zones with moderate climate ( Europe, the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Japan, Australia, South Africa, Argentina and Brazil among the others ) of the northern ans southern emisphere.
There are few or no nations which are around the equator which are very much developed. Maybe climate is a factor in development, maybe it is too hard to work when it is too hot or maybe nations which have cold winters need houses with heating, coates so they need " development " to survive while other countries around the equator do not.
This probably is a very stupid explanation for the problem so please do not laugh, I am just reporting all the explanations I have heard, without too much filter

- Religion: some people say that Christian religion fosters progress ( this is not a talk about if God exists or not, just if Christain religion works either if God exists or not, just if people believe that there is a God ): when you think that your life is only one and, if you are good, there is a " better life " waiting for you, maybe you are induced to work hard ?? This may be and explanation why countries wiht animistic religions ( in Africa for example ) or with religions that support the idea of reincarnation ( India and Japan ) are not much developed or started their development only after they got in contact with Western countries.
However, this pseudo-theory does not explain why Iran and Irak are chrocnically under-developed and at war and why, while the great majority of Japanese still believe in reincarnation, Japan is a major economic power

Replies to CBL4 ( thankl for the answers CBL4, they are very interesting !! )

1) Many of the "nations" are not nations in the sense of common identity. The tribes/enthnicities were carved up in a manner to make it easier for the colonialist to rule not for self rule. The colonialists frequently had a divide and conquer mentality which meant when independence came, there was great animosity between groups

2) The colonialist set up very centralized government which is not appropriate for a poor country (or any country actually). It also led to the despots so common. Also post WWII, the European intellectuals were enamored with socialism and communism and tried to leave this "ideal" in the wake.

I know something about the facts that many African people do not feel they belong to this or that nation but more to this or that tribe.
However, if it were only for this, maybe after 50 or 100 years after the end of colonialism the situation maybe should have been changed
Also, if centralized government may not be the best for underdeveloped countries, it still works ( even if many would say that does not work that well ) in Europe, Japan, etc.

3) Geography does play a role. Read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel

This may be interesting, the name of the book is " Guns, Germs, and Steel ". I am trying to find it at Amazon' s. Thanks !!
Maybe you can give me a hint about what it talkes about.

4) Cold world politics which enabled strong men to play off the East and West.

That is also a reason I failed to consider

 

[Matteo Martini]

Reply to swstephe
" perhaps you should look at the flip-side of racism. you mentioned that there was *no* hunger in western countries. that is not entirely true. there is definitely hunger, and it is often race-related. there are statistics that 46% of african-american and 40% of asian-american children, (their terms, not mine), in the usa are considered at "hunger levels": "

I looked after this in the FAO website, in the " state of food insecurity in the world " ( link: http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/x8200e/x8200e03.htm )
If you look down, in ht epage, there is a diagram called " Proportion of undernourished in countries in transition, by prevalence category, 1996-98 ", you see that ex-U.S.S.R. countries have about 5 to 34 % of their population undernourished, Yogoslavia, Slovakia and others from 2,5% to 4% and other countries more developed of the former East block like Poland and hungary are below 2,5% of their population.
I find it difficult to believe that the U.S. population has a number ( in percentage ) of people undernourished larger than Belarus 8 which is around 1 or 2 % ).
Moreover, in the diagram in which the F.A.O. splits the prople undernourished by country, North America and Europe ( as well as Japan and others ) are not even considered.

 

[shanek]

Everybody is a dictator = there are no dictators !!

But a democracy is not "Everybody is a dictator." It's, 51% get to act as a dictator and do whatever they want to the other 49%.

 

[Matteo Martini]

With democracy 51% of the population gets to act as a dictator, with dictatorship 0.0001% of the population ( that is, the dictator himself ) gets to act as a dictator.
Still we have a better rapresentation of popular will with democracy, don' t you think ??

Matteo

 

[shanek]

With democracy 51% of the population gets to act as a dictator, with dictatorship 0.0001% of the population ( that is, the dictator himself ) gets to act as a dictator.
Still we have a better rapresentation of popular will with democracy, don' t you think ??

It's even better in a form of government where everyone governs his own life.

 

[Matteo Martini]

anarchism ??

everyone free to do what he wants, no police, no government, " no hell below us, above us only sky " ( I think it was Imagine )

 

[epepke]

Let me preface my remark by saying I know less than I would like to about the issues. (aka I am shooting from the hip)

I suspect that warfare plays a factor even in countries that are not engaging in warfare because of the flow of refugees across borders.

I'm old. I can remember when there was war in Ethiopia and also starvation, while Somalia was doing just fine.

I'm probably the only one old enough to remember that. Yes, it did happen. Really. Ethiopia was the issue for the "Feed the World" and "We Are the World" songs, which people remember just barely and only because CDs last long enough.

Although it seems strange, like saying that once we were at war with Eurasia rather than Eastasia, I swear on a copy of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, I am not making this up. Ethiopia was starving. Somalia was eating. There was war in Ethiopia but not in Somalia.