A familiar story of looming famine is filtering out of East Africa. Again, a World Summit on Food Security this week is addressing the symptoms but not the causes. Part of the cause is years of poor rains: Few African farmers have irrigation and in Ethiopia 90 percent of agriculture is rain-dependent. But farmers in other parts of the world routinely face droughts yet avoid famine.
Before 1800, however, famine was a common cause of death around the world. Most people everywhere were subsistence farmers. When conditions were good, they produced enough to eat and a little more. When conditions were bad, they consumed their savings. If bad conditions persisted, they died.
This cycle changed slowly in Western Europe as urbanization increased and people specialized in making certain goods that they traded with others who also specialized. Output increased and competition drove innovation, further increasing output. Agricultural production rose dramatically and famine declined.
Two European famines of the 19th century stand out as exceptions: Ireland from 1845 to 1852 and Finland from 1866 to 1868. Both were caused by oppressive governments restricting the rights of individuals to own land and to trade: Subsistence farming, combined with disease and bad weather, killed hundreds of thousands.
Since the 1920s, global deaths from drought-related famines have fallen by 99.9 percent. The reason? Continued specialization and trade, which have multiplied the amount of food produced per capita and have enabled people in drought-prone regions to diversify and become less vulnerable.
But where governments in Africa prevent the free movement of goods and people and where land rights are limited or insecure, people have few opportunities other than eke out a meager living. Ethiopia is a prime example: Government is mainly responsible for the repeating disasters.
In 1975, the socialist dictatorship of Mengistu Haile Mariam nationalized all rural land in Ethiopia, disrupting complex and troubled imperial tenure as well as evolved customary land tenure. The stated aim was to seize land from exploitative owners, provide farmers with rights to use land, create agricultural cooperatives to feed the country, and keep people out of cities.
It failed. Exploitation was traded for oppression. Without incentives to improve the land, output fell sharply and trade was outlawed. Under Mengistu, farmers were not allowed to put crops aside for the bad times, nor money from their sales. Entrepreneurs were not allowed to move food to areas where it was most needed. These were all considered anti-social capitalist practices. When drought struck in 1983, as it does periodically, millions were unable to get enough food and hundreds of thousands died.
Has the government of Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia’s prime minister since 1991, learnt the lessons of 1983?
Meles’ government has hardly changed the Mengistu policy of government ownership of land. Under the 1995 Constitution, farmers continue to have use rights but not ownership rights. They cannot therefore mortgage their land, so they cannot securitize loans for inputs to raise yields (eg, seed, fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation); hence, the interest they are charged is much higher.
Nor are they able sell their land to move in search of greater economic opportunity. Instead, families have no choice but to subdivide the land they use into smaller and smaller plots for their adult children. A host of ill consequences follow: Families must deplete their limited savings or sell other property in order to survive; continuous subdivision leads directly to environmental degradation and lower crop yields which, of course, worsen hunger. And, finally, efficient farmers are not allowed to buy property and build larger and more productive farms.
Worse, the government purposely limits migration to cities. Why? The government claims it is concerned about “chaotic” urban growth. But the real fear is that more people in Addis Ababa might make it harder for the government to squelch protest and retain political power. However, when countrypeople are prohibited from moving to towns, they are also prohibited from seeking economic opportunities and using their entrepreneurial talents — the very thing people need when they can no longer support themselves and their families by farming.
Forcing people to remain smallholder farmers, denying them opportunities in cities, compelling them to migrate and making them ruin the land through subdivision are bad government policies, not bad weather.
This year’s tragedy could have been avoided by different policies, transferring government-owned land to those who till it and eliminating restrictions on trade and migration. Now is the time to empower the poor and prevent future tragedies.
Julian Morris is executive director of International Policy Network. Karol Boudreaux is senior research fellow and lead researcher of the Enterprise Africa! Project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS