Joined
·
1,637 Posts
the economic benefits of trade are, for the most part, a generally accept truth. However, not all countries that have embraced trade have seen a concomitant rise in the growth.
Indeed, countries can be classified into three broad categories :
tragically, many African countries fall in the third group, why ??
Moreover, elected Western politicians have remained keen to protect their agricultural markets, and win the backing of the powerful farming lobby. the net result is protective world of trade restrictions and barriers thrown up around the West, to keep African and other developing regions produce out. but developed markets are crucial in terms of both purchasing and power size, for African trade, which depends on such countries for much of its export revenue.
the members of the OECD - a club of wealthy nations- spend almost $300 billion on agricultural subsidies (based on 2005 estimates). this is almost three times the total aid from the OECD countries to all developing nations (of course, some aid advocates suggest compensating Africa for this imbalance with more..aid !)
estimates suggest that AFrica alone loses around $500 billion each year because of restrictive trade embargoes - largely in th form of heavy subsidies by Western governments to Western farmers.
in the US alone, the total annual amount of farm subsidies stands at around $15 billion and that number is rising. As a share of farmers's income, subsidies rose from around 14% in the middle of 90s to 17% in 2009. the 2002 US Farm Security and Rural Investment Act gave US farmers nearly $200 billion in subsidies for the subsequent ten years - $70 billion more tha the previous programe ! and represented as much as an 80% increase in certain subsidies !
the Europeans are just as protective.
the CAP (Common Agriculture Policy) eats into around half of the European Union's budget of Euro127 billion (direct farm subsidies are alone are worth nearly Euro 40 billion) and EU subsidies are approximately 35% of famers' total income !
what means is that each European Union cow gets $2.50 a day in subsidies, more than what a billion people, many of them Africans, each have to live on every day !
For the West, it would appear that everything is sacred : steel, cotton, sugar, rice, wheat, corn, soybean, honey, wool, dairy, produce, peanuts, chickpeas, lentils and even mohair...
These subsidies have a dual impact. Western farmers get to sell their produce to a captive consumer at home above world market prices, and they can also afford to dump their excess production at lower prices abroad, thus undercutting the struggling African farmer, upon whose meager livelihood the export the export income crucially depends. With the millions of tons of subsidized exports flooding the market so cheaply, African farmers cannot possibly compete.
look at what has happened to two of Africa's chief exports: cotton and sugar, both of which have to contend with their Western counterparts producers :
in 2003, US cotton subsidies to its farmers were around $4 billion. Oxfam has observed : 'America's cotton farmers receive more in subsidies than the entire GDP of Burkina Faso, three times more in in subsidies than the entire US aid budget for Africa's 500 millions people !
Yet, the livelihoods of at least 10 million people in West and Central Africa alone depends on revenues from cotton, including some 6 million rural households in Nigeria, Benin, Togo, Mali and Zimbabwe !
Want to read more astonishing facts ?
jump on Best seller book from the Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo - Dead Aid, why aid is not working and how there is a better way for Africa - 2009
Indeed, countries can be classified into three broad categories :
- winning globalizers who have increased trade and and seen increased growth
- non-globalizers, who who eschew trade and have unsurprisingly seen little accompanying growth
- the losing globalizers who have increased trade but not seen growth
tragically, many African countries fall in the third group, why ??
because it comes down to politics !
in an uncertain world, Western countries - notably France and US - are fearful of relying on other nations for their food in the event of a global war.
Moreover, elected Western politicians have remained keen to protect their agricultural markets, and win the backing of the powerful farming lobby. the net result is protective world of trade restrictions and barriers thrown up around the West, to keep African and other developing regions produce out. but developed markets are crucial in terms of both purchasing and power size, for African trade, which depends on such countries for much of its export revenue.
the members of the OECD - a club of wealthy nations- spend almost $300 billion on agricultural subsidies (based on 2005 estimates). this is almost three times the total aid from the OECD countries to all developing nations (of course, some aid advocates suggest compensating Africa for this imbalance with more..aid !)
estimates suggest that AFrica alone loses around $500 billion each year because of restrictive trade embargoes - largely in th form of heavy subsidies by Western governments to Western farmers.
in the US alone, the total annual amount of farm subsidies stands at around $15 billion and that number is rising. As a share of farmers's income, subsidies rose from around 14% in the middle of 90s to 17% in 2009. the 2002 US Farm Security and Rural Investment Act gave US farmers nearly $200 billion in subsidies for the subsequent ten years - $70 billion more tha the previous programe ! and represented as much as an 80% increase in certain subsidies !
the Europeans are just as protective.
the CAP (Common Agriculture Policy) eats into around half of the European Union's budget of Euro127 billion (direct farm subsidies are alone are worth nearly Euro 40 billion) and EU subsidies are approximately 35% of famers' total income !
what means is that each European Union cow gets $2.50 a day in subsidies, more than what a billion people, many of them Africans, each have to live on every day !
For the West, it would appear that everything is sacred : steel, cotton, sugar, rice, wheat, corn, soybean, honey, wool, dairy, produce, peanuts, chickpeas, lentils and even mohair...
These subsidies have a dual impact. Western farmers get to sell their produce to a captive consumer at home above world market prices, and they can also afford to dump their excess production at lower prices abroad, thus undercutting the struggling African farmer, upon whose meager livelihood the export the export income crucially depends. With the millions of tons of subsidized exports flooding the market so cheaply, African farmers cannot possibly compete.
look at what has happened to two of Africa's chief exports: cotton and sugar, both of which have to contend with their Western counterparts producers :
in 2003, US cotton subsidies to its farmers were around $4 billion. Oxfam has observed : 'America's cotton farmers receive more in subsidies than the entire GDP of Burkina Faso, three times more in in subsidies than the entire US aid budget for Africa's 500 millions people !
Yet, the livelihoods of at least 10 million people in West and Central Africa alone depends on revenues from cotton, including some 6 million rural households in Nigeria, Benin, Togo, Mali and Zimbabwe !
Want to read more astonishing facts ?
jump on Best seller book from the Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo - Dead Aid, why aid is not working and how there is a better way for Africa - 2009
