The English Guardian has suddenly noticed that "Beating copyright infringement in the third world could be as simple as making products affordable". I have argued this on several occasions in the last few years, including here and here, but I would not be the first person to make this point.
However, I'm happy to hear that Joe Karaganis and others have spent three years researching the issue and come up with the Media Piracy in Emerging Economies report. But I don't expect that to make much difference to the position of people in developing countries.
It is also worth stressing that intellectual property (IP) protection, one of the most popular forms of trade protection among those who ostensibly oppose trade protection, is not paid for by those who benefit from it; it is paid for by consumers, in rich and poor countries alike. It's like a kind of tax that we pay to protect the interests of the rich. And it can represent well over 90% of the revenue that IP owners receive.
The report is also important in being independent, unlike much of what we read about IP, copyright issues, piracy, counterfeiting, fakes and whatever else industry is currently whining about.
We might think that everyone can do without luxury goods, especially people who are also short of water, food and medicine. However, various multinationals are doing everything in their power to control water, somehow or other, they already control food to a large extent and the drug industry is almost entirely run on profits inflated by IP protection.
There may be a lot of talk from Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, the World Trade Organization (WTO), UNAIDS and others about generic medicines and making drugs affordable. But prices of vital drugs are also protected by the same means as other goods. Even drugs whose cost has 'dropped' from the astronomical thousands of dollars per year to not much more than 100 dollars, are protected. The ultimate price charged is 100% controlled by the rich and powerful.
Therefore, the 'South African Generic Medicines Association' may sound touchy-feely enough, what with the 'African' and the 'generic' bits. But it is as much part of the pharmaceutical industry as AVAC or any of these other front groups that claim to be trying to keep costs down and make pharmaceutical products more accessible.
A speech by Paul de Lay of UNAIDS makes it clear who his intended audience is and who stands to benefit from any agreements that are made when it comes to generic drug pricing. The prices discussed may seem affordable when compared to the ridiculous prices they are replacing. But in reality, they are only affordable to the aid industry, not to the people who need them.
And the aid money going towards overpriced generic drugs is effectively another subsidy for those who ostensibly despise subsidies. This is money that could be better spent on the care people need, beyond the mere distribution of drugs, nurses, doctors, other health personnel and much else. But it is not the needs of HIV positive people that are being served here.
Incidentally, de Lay's speech mentions what he considers to be three areas of discussion, HIV prevention, treatment and health delivery. In reality, all three of these refer to drugs, to be paid for by aid money. To date, a relatively small percentage of HIV spending has gone towards prevention, but the industry has agreed that putting more people, HIV positive and negative, on drugs will prevent HIV transmission. And health delivery may sound like more than drugs, but it isn't really. Just read the speech.
It's wonderful how the interests of UNAIDS and the HIV industry as a whole now matches the interests of the global pharmaceutical industry. In fact, UNAIDS' HIV strategy can be summed up in one word: drugs. You can waste a lot more words on it, and you can be sure that UNAIDS and others will, but in the end, drugs are it.
De Lay advocates TRIPS (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights), TRIPS Plus, Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) and all sorts of other institutions and instruments that only point to one thing: intellectual property and the protection of the very rich against the very needy. The consortium of partners includes the wHO, the World Bank, the Gates Foundation (financed by IP protection) and a few others.
So it's official: the entire HIV industry, fronted by UNAIDS, is run by and for big pharma, and much of the aid industry will continue to subsidise and represent the interests of other industry sectors. The whole pretense of humanitarian motives can now be abandoned, as no one was fooled anyway. But, more worryingly, few seem to object to this either.
Showing posts with label subsidies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label subsidies. Show all posts
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
'Counterfeiting' is a Problem That Can Only Be Solved By Big Pharma
If a business produces something and sells it for a price that covers costs and also gives a decent profit, that's a good model. Others may make the same thing, so a business needs to make the best and work hard to make sure they are not undercut. But most people will pay for something good rather than something that isn't up to scratch, if they can afford it.
However, if a business produces something and sells it for a price that is a complete distortion of the above business model, it is worthwhile for someone else to produce the same thing and charge a lot less. They don't even have to cut costs, they can just accept a lower profit. And those who have no chance of affording the expensive product may well be able to afford the cheaper one.
This is an oversimplification, but it is roughly what the pharmaceutical industry does, charges an outrageous price for something because they can. In addition, the industry depends on a form of protectionism called 'intellectual property rights'. Arguably, this has its uses, even that it is vital, but it is still a form of protectionism.
Often, the research that pharmaceutical companies claim to spend so much on is done by publicly funded, or partially publically funded, institutions. But there is little or no return to the public. And the amount spent on PR and marketing far exceeds what is actually spent on research.
So when someone else makes the same product but demands less for it, the industry reacts by resorting to all sorts of tricks to make sure the competition is destroyed. Competition, when you don't have a high level of trade protection, is not appreciated by the pharmaceutical industry.
The word 'counterfeit', therefore, can mean all sorts of things. It can mean a generic version of a branded drug, a fake version of a branded drug, a substandard version of a branded drug and probably other things. But a generic version of a branded drug is not a counterfeit and claiming that it is one threatens to deny lifesaving treatments to many people in developing countries.
If drug companies don't want generic versions of their drugs to be produced, they should produce affordable versions themselves. There is clearly a huge market for them and a very good profit to be made. Dropping the price to affordable levels would also make the production of substandard and fake drugs a lot less tempting, perhaps not even worth the effort.
But instead of encouraging the production of generic drugs, the EU and, of course, the entire pharmaceutical industry, want to make sure affordable versions of drugs are not produced. They are currently trying to rope India into signing a 'trade agreement' whereby it will no longer be possible for the country to produce cheap drugs. Yet another form of protectionism.
India is one of the main sources of affordable drugs for developing countries. Some drugs will cost many times, perhaps even tens or hundreds of times more, just because they are protected by the sort of regulation that big industry claims to detest.
There is no doubt that some drugs are fake, made of materials that have no effect or are harmless, and this is unacceptable. But as long as ridiculous profits are made from drug pricing models, people will always find ways of selling their versions, no matter how useless or dangerous. It's not as if copyrighted drugs are always effective, or that they are never dangerous, either.
The pharmaceutical industry, already protected and subsidised in so many ways, wants more public money to be used to 'regulate' drug supplies in developing countries. Multinationals refuse regulation for themselves, but they seem to love the idea of regulating any competition.
Big Pharma have effectively created counterfeiting and many other related problems themselves, it's how they keep their profits so inordnately high. So they should sort it out themselves. If people object to the danger to the health and lives of so many people, they should aim their objections at the industry, the problem, not the mere symptoms of the problem.
The Science and Development Network have a selection of articles on the subject of 'counterfeit' drugs and some of the many issues involved. But the article doesn't really point out that Big Pharma don't lose out from counterfeiting because most of those who buy cheap drugs will never be able to afford the expensive versions.
However, if a business produces something and sells it for a price that is a complete distortion of the above business model, it is worthwhile for someone else to produce the same thing and charge a lot less. They don't even have to cut costs, they can just accept a lower profit. And those who have no chance of affording the expensive product may well be able to afford the cheaper one.
This is an oversimplification, but it is roughly what the pharmaceutical industry does, charges an outrageous price for something because they can. In addition, the industry depends on a form of protectionism called 'intellectual property rights'. Arguably, this has its uses, even that it is vital, but it is still a form of protectionism.
Often, the research that pharmaceutical companies claim to spend so much on is done by publicly funded, or partially publically funded, institutions. But there is little or no return to the public. And the amount spent on PR and marketing far exceeds what is actually spent on research.
So when someone else makes the same product but demands less for it, the industry reacts by resorting to all sorts of tricks to make sure the competition is destroyed. Competition, when you don't have a high level of trade protection, is not appreciated by the pharmaceutical industry.
The word 'counterfeit', therefore, can mean all sorts of things. It can mean a generic version of a branded drug, a fake version of a branded drug, a substandard version of a branded drug and probably other things. But a generic version of a branded drug is not a counterfeit and claiming that it is one threatens to deny lifesaving treatments to many people in developing countries.
If drug companies don't want generic versions of their drugs to be produced, they should produce affordable versions themselves. There is clearly a huge market for them and a very good profit to be made. Dropping the price to affordable levels would also make the production of substandard and fake drugs a lot less tempting, perhaps not even worth the effort.
But instead of encouraging the production of generic drugs, the EU and, of course, the entire pharmaceutical industry, want to make sure affordable versions of drugs are not produced. They are currently trying to rope India into signing a 'trade agreement' whereby it will no longer be possible for the country to produce cheap drugs. Yet another form of protectionism.
India is one of the main sources of affordable drugs for developing countries. Some drugs will cost many times, perhaps even tens or hundreds of times more, just because they are protected by the sort of regulation that big industry claims to detest.
There is no doubt that some drugs are fake, made of materials that have no effect or are harmless, and this is unacceptable. But as long as ridiculous profits are made from drug pricing models, people will always find ways of selling their versions, no matter how useless or dangerous. It's not as if copyrighted drugs are always effective, or that they are never dangerous, either.
The pharmaceutical industry, already protected and subsidised in so many ways, wants more public money to be used to 'regulate' drug supplies in developing countries. Multinationals refuse regulation for themselves, but they seem to love the idea of regulating any competition.
Big Pharma have effectively created counterfeiting and many other related problems themselves, it's how they keep their profits so inordnately high. So they should sort it out themselves. If people object to the danger to the health and lives of so many people, they should aim their objections at the industry, the problem, not the mere symptoms of the problem.
The Science and Development Network have a selection of articles on the subject of 'counterfeit' drugs and some of the many issues involved. But the article doesn't really point out that Big Pharma don't lose out from counterfeiting because most of those who buy cheap drugs will never be able to afford the expensive versions.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Widespread Environmental Contamination and Loss of Biodiversity Are 'Externalities' to the GM Industry
The Kenyan government has been persuaded that it can 'revive' the country's cotton industry by introducing genetically modified GM cotton varieties. The first thing that springs to mind is the principle reason for the death of cotton industries in Kenya and every other developing country in the world: subsidies for American cotton farmers. It is not possible for poor countries to produce cotton at a price that can compete with the heavily subsidized American cotton, which is why most country's cotton industries failed many years ago.
Of course, these American subsidies are illegal and they are completely antithetical to the country's constant bleating about the importance of free trade. But double standards have never mattered to rich countries and they never will.
There may well be theoretical benefits to GM organisms, such as cotton, it's hard to know. The GM industry has been pumping out inaccurate and misleading data on trials for so long that they probably don't even know what is true and what isn't by now, and probably don't care much, either.
But the problems that will arise if farmers buy into the thirty pieces of GM silver are more obvious, for those who can be bothered about them. The GM producer in question, Monsanto, which has an unrivalled corporate social responsibility record, claims that farmers will save on pesticide costs because they have to spray less frequently. Unfortunately, they will be obliged to pay more for seeds, spray using expensive pesticides produced by Monsanto and the land they spray will be denuded of all species, from the microscopic up. Expensive Monsanto herbicides will do the same for any plant species.
This is a mere externality to Monsanto and probably to the Kenyan government. The fact that the land and water surrounding land planted with this cotton will be contaminated, probably irreversibly, is also an externality and those promoting the introduction of GM cotton even have the cheek (or ignorance) to claim that it will have a positive impact on the environment and the health of those working on cotton plantations.
In addition to the problem of having to buy seed every year from Monsanto, because it's not possible or even permissible to collect seed at the end of the season, it will be difficult for the farmers to get out of the grip of Monsanto, if and when they wish to. Their land and the land around will be contaminated with the GM cotton for generations and even these contaminated crops could be deemed to the be intellectual property of those generous people at Monsanto.
Many of the claims put about by GM hawkers are yet to be backed up by evidence but even they make little effort now to deny that GM crops are unlikely to be of any benefit to small farmers. The vast majority of farmers in Kenya and other developing countries are subsistence farmers who aim to grow enough food to live on and sometimes grow some cash crops to supplement their income. Although various cash crops have long been foisted on small farmers, many have felt the sting of becoming locked into producing things like tea, sisal, coffee, sugar and biofuels, for example, only to find that yields and prices never match up to what they were promised.
Small farmers who buy into GM crops need to ask themselves if they can afford to become locked into yet another non-food crop that will never be truly economical and may leave them worse off than before. Large scale farmers may not experience the same worries, but whole communities in Kenya and other countries need to consider what the potential effects of widespread contaminated land and water may be. They also need to consider the consequences of most of their food production being owned by a multinational that is not even bound by the country's laws.
It's worthwhile for Kenyans to bear in mind that cotton industries in developing countries did not decline because of pests and other problems but because a more powerful country controls the market. This is not likely to change quickly and the Americans are not going to give up the level of control that they have cheated so hard to obtain. Similar remarks apply to other GM crops. GM is not a technology for the poor, it is a technology for the powerful, like many technologies. But of course, it's of less use to the powerful unless the poor believe that they too need GM technology.
Of course, these American subsidies are illegal and they are completely antithetical to the country's constant bleating about the importance of free trade. But double standards have never mattered to rich countries and they never will.
There may well be theoretical benefits to GM organisms, such as cotton, it's hard to know. The GM industry has been pumping out inaccurate and misleading data on trials for so long that they probably don't even know what is true and what isn't by now, and probably don't care much, either.
But the problems that will arise if farmers buy into the thirty pieces of GM silver are more obvious, for those who can be bothered about them. The GM producer in question, Monsanto, which has an unrivalled corporate social responsibility record, claims that farmers will save on pesticide costs because they have to spray less frequently. Unfortunately, they will be obliged to pay more for seeds, spray using expensive pesticides produced by Monsanto and the land they spray will be denuded of all species, from the microscopic up. Expensive Monsanto herbicides will do the same for any plant species.
This is a mere externality to Monsanto and probably to the Kenyan government. The fact that the land and water surrounding land planted with this cotton will be contaminated, probably irreversibly, is also an externality and those promoting the introduction of GM cotton even have the cheek (or ignorance) to claim that it will have a positive impact on the environment and the health of those working on cotton plantations.
In addition to the problem of having to buy seed every year from Monsanto, because it's not possible or even permissible to collect seed at the end of the season, it will be difficult for the farmers to get out of the grip of Monsanto, if and when they wish to. Their land and the land around will be contaminated with the GM cotton for generations and even these contaminated crops could be deemed to the be intellectual property of those generous people at Monsanto.
Many of the claims put about by GM hawkers are yet to be backed up by evidence but even they make little effort now to deny that GM crops are unlikely to be of any benefit to small farmers. The vast majority of farmers in Kenya and other developing countries are subsistence farmers who aim to grow enough food to live on and sometimes grow some cash crops to supplement their income. Although various cash crops have long been foisted on small farmers, many have felt the sting of becoming locked into producing things like tea, sisal, coffee, sugar and biofuels, for example, only to find that yields and prices never match up to what they were promised.
Small farmers who buy into GM crops need to ask themselves if they can afford to become locked into yet another non-food crop that will never be truly economical and may leave them worse off than before. Large scale farmers may not experience the same worries, but whole communities in Kenya and other countries need to consider what the potential effects of widespread contaminated land and water may be. They also need to consider the consequences of most of their food production being owned by a multinational that is not even bound by the country's laws.
It's worthwhile for Kenyans to bear in mind that cotton industries in developing countries did not decline because of pests and other problems but because a more powerful country controls the market. This is not likely to change quickly and the Americans are not going to give up the level of control that they have cheated so hard to obtain. Similar remarks apply to other GM crops. GM is not a technology for the poor, it is a technology for the powerful, like many technologies. But of course, it's of less use to the powerful unless the poor believe that they too need GM technology.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Expediters of Suffering
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) give loans to developing countries on condition that they introduce certain measures such as elimination of tariffs, subsidies, state intervention, regulation (that includes regulation to protect people against unscrupulous practices), public sector recruitment and many other things. Yet, many of the items that are advised against under WB and IMF Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs) are widespread in Western countries. Not only did these countries depend on protecting their industries to become as rich as they are now, they still depend on protection today.
Take agricultural subsidies, for example. The European Community and the US insist on the need for everything being market driven, on the need to reduce protectionism. At the same time, they grow sugar that is uneconomical to grow, they produce more cereals and dairy products than they can use. The US is the biggest cotton producer in the world, not because labour is so cheap there or because they are so efficient but because cotton farmers receive such high subsidies. Then these rich countries dump their surplus produce on developing country markets, resulting in farmers in developing countries being unable to sell their products, often having to leave them in the field to rot.
Worse than that, much 'aid' money is spent on buying up surpluses in developed countries and distributing it in developing countries. This has the same effect as dumping surpluses but it has the advantage for developing countries that they can claim it is 'aid'. This trick is even seen as a way of palming off genetically modified (GM) food in the hope that people who are starving will not be in a position to refuse whatever they can get. And the chief beneficiaries of these subsidies in rich countries are big farmers. In developing countries, most agriculture is very small scale. Many small farmers who don't get some form of help go bankrupt and/or starve.
But some developing countries have challenged IMF and WB strictures on subsidies. Malawi, who introduced a subsidy programme in 2005, is a good example. They have realised that SAPs have made them poorer and more vulnerable, despite all the promises they were given by international agencies. Last year they trebled maize production by subsidising seed and fertilizer. Therefore, in the present season they will treble their agricultural subsidies because this policy has worked so well already. They are exporters of grain and have won praise for their success in reducing food insecurity. The IMF and the WB opposed an earlier version of these measures and advised the country to sell its national grain reserve, which it did!
This was followed by a famine that killed more than 1000 people. Donors, belatedly, supported the programme and subsequently, Zambia, Ghana, Senegal and Kenya announced plans for similar subsidies. How far they have got with the plans is still not clear. Mozambique has also decided to subsidise fertilizer for its farmers, a move opposed by the US. But Mozambique realises that, long term, they need to produce their own fertilizer. They also realise that they need to improve roads, something the IMF and the WB would, doubtless, disapprove of (unless foreign, private contractors were to be utilised).
This doesn't mean that Malawian agriculture is sustainable, of course. Malawi, like many other developing countries, is highly dependent on imported pesticides, fertilizers and other technologies. In the long run, it is to be hoped that they will be able to reduce their dependence and achieve better sustainability. More importantly, it is vital that they don't fall for the GM propaganda that claims it to be sustainable and productive. That will only increase their dependence and reverse whatever gains they have made.
But against all advice, especially international agency advice, Malawi went ahead with this programme. Will Kenya eventually do the same thing? They don't have the advantage of a president who is also a minister of agriculture. Worse than that, their president is an economist. So it seems unlikely that the present administration will go for subsidies. But even unlikely things sometimes happen. After all, the current president was re-elected against all odds, wasn't he?
Malawi has reduced their food budget by 120 million dollars and it has reduced their dependence on food aid. That must appeal to an economist, especially given the food insecurity and budgetary problems being faced by Kenya right now. But even if the government were willing to consider it, the IMF and WB would probably object. In fact, a cynic might suggest that these international financial institutions are not really interested in the good of ordinary people in developing countries. After all, in the 1970s Africa was a net food exporter, now it is highly dependent on imports and aid, at least in part as a result of their policies.
Before SAPs were concocted by IMF and WB economists some time in the late 70s or early 80s, Kenya was enjoying a period of relative prosperity. It wasn't to last long because those ruling the country were mainly interested in enriching themselves. (That makes them sound like the present rulers but, hey, most of this lot have been in senior positions since the early days of independence!) The international community went along with this because Kenya was being a good capitalist and opening up the country to foreign direct investment. In fact, the country was dominated by foreign capital, but this also suited the Kenyan elite very well.
Once Kenya accepted loans with SAPs, things changed. The foreign (and native) investors who were doing so well out of subsidised industry found that costs were getting high in Kenya and they left as quickly as they could. Unemployment increased as public sector employees were laid off and recruitment was cut. That's still going on, by the way, and if you think little of public sector employees, just think doctors, nurses, educators and other public service employees. There are good reasons why the roads are so bad in Kenya. There are good reasons why under five mortality, maternal mortality and many other health indicators have been slipping for most of the last three decades. (And from the point of view of this blog, there are good reasons why HIV was able to spread rapidly among people with so many increasing vulnerabilities, but I'll return to that another time.)
Many of the problems being reported in this week's newspapers stem from policies that were adopted nearly thirty years ago. These policies were honed and twisted to suit those who stood to gain most from them, the rich and powerful in Kenya and in other countries. The whole process couldn't have been carried out without much help from an array of international financial, political and other institutions. And while the policies may often be referred to as 'economic', or even 'ideological', they are more correctly political. They cannot be justified on economic grounds because they destroy economies. They cannot be justified on ideological grounds because they are applied inconsistently, where and when it suits.
These policies have long been backed up, and continue to be backed up by their advocates. This is so, regardless of any evidence that they are responsible for hunger, disease, suffering and death. And that's because they suit a particular political standpoint. They could be called 'pragmatic', but I prefer the term 'expedient'.
Take agricultural subsidies, for example. The European Community and the US insist on the need for everything being market driven, on the need to reduce protectionism. At the same time, they grow sugar that is uneconomical to grow, they produce more cereals and dairy products than they can use. The US is the biggest cotton producer in the world, not because labour is so cheap there or because they are so efficient but because cotton farmers receive such high subsidies. Then these rich countries dump their surplus produce on developing country markets, resulting in farmers in developing countries being unable to sell their products, often having to leave them in the field to rot.
Worse than that, much 'aid' money is spent on buying up surpluses in developed countries and distributing it in developing countries. This has the same effect as dumping surpluses but it has the advantage for developing countries that they can claim it is 'aid'. This trick is even seen as a way of palming off genetically modified (GM) food in the hope that people who are starving will not be in a position to refuse whatever they can get. And the chief beneficiaries of these subsidies in rich countries are big farmers. In developing countries, most agriculture is very small scale. Many small farmers who don't get some form of help go bankrupt and/or starve.
But some developing countries have challenged IMF and WB strictures on subsidies. Malawi, who introduced a subsidy programme in 2005, is a good example. They have realised that SAPs have made them poorer and more vulnerable, despite all the promises they were given by international agencies. Last year they trebled maize production by subsidising seed and fertilizer. Therefore, in the present season they will treble their agricultural subsidies because this policy has worked so well already. They are exporters of grain and have won praise for their success in reducing food insecurity. The IMF and the WB opposed an earlier version of these measures and advised the country to sell its national grain reserve, which it did!
This was followed by a famine that killed more than 1000 people. Donors, belatedly, supported the programme and subsequently, Zambia, Ghana, Senegal and Kenya announced plans for similar subsidies. How far they have got with the plans is still not clear. Mozambique has also decided to subsidise fertilizer for its farmers, a move opposed by the US. But Mozambique realises that, long term, they need to produce their own fertilizer. They also realise that they need to improve roads, something the IMF and the WB would, doubtless, disapprove of (unless foreign, private contractors were to be utilised).
This doesn't mean that Malawian agriculture is sustainable, of course. Malawi, like many other developing countries, is highly dependent on imported pesticides, fertilizers and other technologies. In the long run, it is to be hoped that they will be able to reduce their dependence and achieve better sustainability. More importantly, it is vital that they don't fall for the GM propaganda that claims it to be sustainable and productive. That will only increase their dependence and reverse whatever gains they have made.
But against all advice, especially international agency advice, Malawi went ahead with this programme. Will Kenya eventually do the same thing? They don't have the advantage of a president who is also a minister of agriculture. Worse than that, their president is an economist. So it seems unlikely that the present administration will go for subsidies. But even unlikely things sometimes happen. After all, the current president was re-elected against all odds, wasn't he?
Malawi has reduced their food budget by 120 million dollars and it has reduced their dependence on food aid. That must appeal to an economist, especially given the food insecurity and budgetary problems being faced by Kenya right now. But even if the government were willing to consider it, the IMF and WB would probably object. In fact, a cynic might suggest that these international financial institutions are not really interested in the good of ordinary people in developing countries. After all, in the 1970s Africa was a net food exporter, now it is highly dependent on imports and aid, at least in part as a result of their policies.
Before SAPs were concocted by IMF and WB economists some time in the late 70s or early 80s, Kenya was enjoying a period of relative prosperity. It wasn't to last long because those ruling the country were mainly interested in enriching themselves. (That makes them sound like the present rulers but, hey, most of this lot have been in senior positions since the early days of independence!) The international community went along with this because Kenya was being a good capitalist and opening up the country to foreign direct investment. In fact, the country was dominated by foreign capital, but this also suited the Kenyan elite very well.
Once Kenya accepted loans with SAPs, things changed. The foreign (and native) investors who were doing so well out of subsidised industry found that costs were getting high in Kenya and they left as quickly as they could. Unemployment increased as public sector employees were laid off and recruitment was cut. That's still going on, by the way, and if you think little of public sector employees, just think doctors, nurses, educators and other public service employees. There are good reasons why the roads are so bad in Kenya. There are good reasons why under five mortality, maternal mortality and many other health indicators have been slipping for most of the last three decades. (And from the point of view of this blog, there are good reasons why HIV was able to spread rapidly among people with so many increasing vulnerabilities, but I'll return to that another time.)
Many of the problems being reported in this week's newspapers stem from policies that were adopted nearly thirty years ago. These policies were honed and twisted to suit those who stood to gain most from them, the rich and powerful in Kenya and in other countries. The whole process couldn't have been carried out without much help from an array of international financial, political and other institutions. And while the policies may often be referred to as 'economic', or even 'ideological', they are more correctly political. They cannot be justified on economic grounds because they destroy economies. They cannot be justified on ideological grounds because they are applied inconsistently, where and when it suits.
These policies have long been backed up, and continue to be backed up by their advocates. This is so, regardless of any evidence that they are responsible for hunger, disease, suffering and death. And that's because they suit a particular political standpoint. They could be called 'pragmatic', but I prefer the term 'expedient'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
