Email 
Print 
Why is Africa poor? Economic policy versus culture
Written by: Nina Brenjo
Internally displaced boys carry relief food in Elasha Biyaha camp, outside Mogadishu in Somalia. REUTERS\Stringer
Why is it that some parts of the world can't seem to escape the poverty trap, while others have enjoyed successful economic growth for decades?
The answer, according to economist Gregory Clark, is these countries' culture, rather than their economic policies. His arguments are summed up by Robert J. Samuelson, writing in the Washington Post.
Culture is a key factor that determines whether a society can enjoy successful economic growth, says Samuelson in his review of Clark's latest book, "A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World". Many societies can't take advantage of modern technology and management because "their values and social organisation are antagonistic". And no amount of "sensible" economic measures can overcome this.
To explain his theory, Clark goes back to the Industrial Revolution. Before 1800, most societies had lived for centuries in more or less the same way. But England's Industrial Revolution marked the beginning of the world's striving towards better living standards, less hunger and the creation of the welfare state to redistribute income.
But why did the revolution begin in England? In Clark's view it wasn't because of the country's political stability, low taxes and open markets, as both China and Japan enjoyed similar conditions at the time. Rather, it was because of England's middle class values, such as "patience, hard work, ingenuity, innovativeness, education", which were both widespread and favoured economic growth.
Yet, China's recent economic boom shows that economic policies do indeed matter, says Samuelson. Bad policies can stifle growth, better policies can encourage it.
But Samuelson appears broadly supportive of Clark's main argument.
Wealth in impoverished countries won't "spring forth magically from a few big industrial projects or cookie-cutter policies imposed by outside experts", Samuelson says.
"It's culture that nourishes productive policies and behaviour" and in turn affects whether countries manage to lift themselves up or not.
One thing that struck me is thatt Samuelson's review does not even mention factors such as past colonialism and the current relationship between the West and developing nations.
Clark's theories have caused considerable controversy. Is he implying, for example, that the reason many Africa countries have lagged behind is because their cultures don't nourish productive behaviour?
If so, this is pure racism, says David Warsh, editor of Economic Principles, a Web-based independent commentary."Social Darwinism is just around the corner."
Another worrying aspect of the book for Warsh is the policy prescriptions which it propagates. By using the word 'alms', Clark seems to suggest that richer nations should abandon the aid, advice and other help they can provide to developing countries.
Clark criticises the likes of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund for ignoring the fact that "socially induced lethargy" is the problem.
Warsh says Clark implies the solution is to stop giving the poor money and let selective pressure do its work.
And what does Warsh think about Clark's theory?
"There were a lot of things I would have rather done last week than read 'A Farewell to Alms'," he concludes.
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
9 responses to “Why is Africa poor? Economic policy versus culture”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
Unlike some other content on this website, the written content in this article may be republished or redistributed by any means free of charge. Any use of photographs and graphics on this website is expressly prohibited. You must check whether written content contained in other articles on this website may be republished or redistributed without the express permission of Reuters or the relevant third party provider.
06 Nov 2007 09:59:42 GMT
To say that culture is the only factor for the lack of development in certain regions would be wrong. Additionally, to disregard the cultural element as racist and without merit would be equally ignorant.
One cannot deny that cultural values of the West have allowed for economies to thrive and material possesions to increase. If this is seen as the end goal of development, then yes, non-Western cultures will have a hard time becoming "developed." If you want to talk of cultures, you are taking a step back. So lets step back: When one recognizes that true and sustainable development is essentially the transformation of an individual by restoring his/her relationships with their community, others with influence in their lives, the environment and God, we see that even the values of Western culture have not led to this "transformational development." All people are in need of this sort of development and thats not racist or exclusive of other factors!08 Nov 2007 12:27:38 GMT
This is an old argument which has already been disproved time and time again.
Claiming that the industrial revolution started in England because of culture ignores the fact that the industrial revolution was fueled by the wealth Britain was extracting from it colonies at the time. It also ignores all the other factors that led to the industrial revolution, including the conflict and competition within Europe that contributed to the improvements in technology over hundreds of years. These ideas explained further in Jared Diamond's book 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'. To suggest that Africans are lazy reflects on the ignorance of the writer. Anyone who has spent a little time in Africa with poor, rural people can tell you that to survive in these conditions you simply cannot be lazy. Subsistence farming, walking long distances to collect water, attend school, get to health clinics or markets is not easy and you just cannot survive in this environment if you are lazy. I agree that 'cookie cutter' solutions imposed from outsiders are not the solution, as these ignore local and historical contexts. It also ignores local people's values and desires, and removes control from people who are most affected by these 'solutions'. I also agree that 'alms' are never going to solve the problems of poverty as they maintain a relationship based on power between the 'benefactor' and 'beneficiary'. As Matt Cottrell has said, the only way real transformational change will succeed is if the power structures that have created and maintained poverty are changed. Perhaps Gregory Clark needs to study history a little closer to look at the roots of wealth and power in the modern world, and spend some time with some of the vulnerable people he is so quick to blame for their 'inability' to create wealth.08 Nov 2007 12:29:29 GMT
Culture is a terribly nebulous concept, giving people who blame culture for various ills all sorts of wiggle room. Let's get more analytic. Milanovic (World Bank) evaluated a wide variety of common theories as to why the world's poorest nations keep falling behind. The only theory that was statistically significant was the frequency of wars. This is not a useful conclusion until you examine another paper that found a clear, direct relationship between the frequency of civil conflict and the rate of population growth. This research combined with Milanovic's research is a useful result. Also it is easily explained. The cost of developing-world-class infrastructure growth needed to accommodate population growth is roughly $1 trillion for the developing world's current population growth rate, i.e. $16,400 for each net person added to the population. People earning a median $2/day cannot afford such an expense. This is why the de! veloping world is so starved for financial- and human capital, and why they usually can offer foreign investors little more than unskilled labor. Nations like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong all advanced from third world status to first world status during a period of active family planning programs. Tunisia also prospered, as did Ireland, from active family planning programs. In fact, in the past 100 years no nation has ever advanced from third world status to first world status until its fertility rate dropped below 2.3 children per woman. My website goes into this and related issues in far greater detail.
08 Nov 2007 15:29:30 GMT
To Bruce, Living in South America has shown me that you are right on the money about getting the birth rate down. These country's with all their desires to break the poverty cycle will not do so until one can convince the young men that it is not "cool" to see how many young girls they can get pregnant and to teach the young girls that yes, babies are cute but they require a lot of energy for a long time, especially as they grow out of that cute period. I sat and listened to a woman the other day tell me about having 13 children. While I cannot deny that the children probably brought her a lot of joy, all I could think of was the local street dog that lives near me that has pups every six months. No control. It is difficult to get a culture to slow down on having so many babies when they have nothing else to do.
10 Nov 2007 14:56:45 GMT
James' most recent reply comes close to taking the issue of family planning back to a cultural issue. Although boys thinking it is cool to make girls pregnant, and girls thinking babies are cute, does contribute to the population growth, this is not the major factor in my opinon. Many people groups across the world believe strongly in having many more children than the '2.3 per woman' indicated earlier. It is cultural, it is well a paternalistic 'problem'. A possible further factor is that in the 1st world, children on the whole are more protected from malnutrition, water-borne disease, and to plan to have 2 or 3 is feasible. How many poor, developing world families have lost kids to the above ailments, because of poor hygiene and santitation, and poor access to adequate health care? People want a legacy, and children are often seen as that legacy, with the added notion that the greater the number, the greater the legacy. This is a! very cultural issue, and can be overcome. As for laziness: it's everywhere.
12 Nov 2007 10:40:02 GMT
As for most complex problems, the solution is not necessary easy. Completely rejecting the argument that culture is a key factor for development success would mean making the same mistake as to think that this is the only reason behind. Culture probably has also an influence although it could not explain all the problem and further research is needed to understand it.
14 Nov 2007 19:48:42 GMT
The economist Gregory Clark is extremely ignorant. He also lacks proper judgement and sound perspective because England like another blogger stated acquired it's wealf from imperialisn and colonism (robbery). If the international monetary fund (IMF) and WORLD BANK WOULD GIVE BACK ALL THE PROFITS COLLECTED BY UNJUST loans with excessively high interest rates and blood monies profited from the TRIANGLE TRADE AND DIAMOND TRADE AND COLTAN TRADE. Europe would be in the same economical situation as Africa. EVERY KNOWLDGE ECONOMIST KNOWS THIS.... who would state the truth pertaining to this is another. REVERSED PSYCHOLOGY IS THE UNDER TONED OF HIS racist aricle. Gregory Clark could not survive under the same conditions as the people he refers to as lazy
10 Dec 2007 16:37:34 GMT
Let us not become emotional here. You have all contributed immensley and you all have right of highly opinionated comments as a matter of constructive criticism and, you have all touched the issues keeping the third world underdeveloped in general, and Africa in particular, through your historical paralysis of analysis on culture, colonialism and uncontrolled population explosion in most of the persistently underdeveloped world. However, other issues that no one appears to be exploring on, are issues such as lack of patriotic leadership, corruption and internal colonialism. It would take another book to expanciate on these leathal weapons of underdevelopment.
13 Dec 2007 10:08:13 GMT
The problem is the white peopel came to africa and enslaved us and teached Africans about shooting and drinking. Now we have aids and hungery. also apartheid killed milions of africans all over the world