"We have been asked to stop aid agencies from bringing food aid into Somalia during harvest periods," says Sheikh Aweys.
"We are keen on taking steps, particularly against those groups that derail local productions...we must stop whatever hinders the efforts of the Islamic communities, including their land production." Aweys said.In other words, stop killing Somalis with kindness. Murray Rothbard wrote an excellent article on this same topic in 1993.
However, he very kindly said the move was not aimed at shutting out aid groups which have played a vital role in helping to provide for impoverished Somalis.
Food charity has just about ruined the previously prosperous farm population of Somalia. For who will buy food from local farmers when they can get food free from international suckers?
posted by Steve | 6:04 AM
6 Comments:
I think it is a mistake to refuse this kind of help. If an international organisations gives food away that is not a problem for those who receive help, but for those who give it away.
With the same logic as Rothbard uses we ought to stop food imports from countries better fitted for agriculture, since those countries ruin "our" farmers.
In a way Rothbard's idea is protectionistic.
If the aid were steady and predictable in perpetuity, then the market would adapt. But since it's not, it makes entrepreneurial forecasting much more difficult than it would be under normal market conditions.
I think that our focus ought to be on the consumer and not on the producer.
To the consumer nothing is better than products given away for nothing.
I think you may be right in that a certain percentage of people benefit from aid, but I also think that two groups of people suffer from them. The first group is farmers and pastoralists who are unable to adapt to the difficult market conditions, are unable to find alternative employment and in many cases have invested heavily in their businesses and would have to sell their machinery or other capital equipment and perhaps land at a loss. The second group is people who are made poorer by aid because they are lazy and inclined to let their skills and mental ability deteriorate from lack of use. The question is whether these two groups outnumber the people who benefit from the aid.
Perhaps you are right in your observations, but I do not see any reason to stop people from giving away products for nothing.
I heard that after some aid organisations started to give people used cloths from Europe in a poor African country the local textile industry got in difficulties, but I do not think that one ought to stop anyone from giving away clothes even if that destroys local industries.
I think that the local economy can find new businesses.
If for example agricultural products are given away for nothing, the locals can open up restaurants and so on.
I do not think that there is any great risk that aid will make the locals lazy either. It is not likely that luxury items will be given away for nothing and once people have satisfied their basic needs, they want luxuries.
And I do not think that aid agencies will give people BMW:s, Gucci clothes and other things like that.
"I do not see any reason to stop people from giving away products for nothing."
I agree. An outright ban on aid deliveries during harvest season would probably be too controversial and problematic, and possibly spoil their relations with donors who deliver aid when and to whom it is thought to be really needed. The courts will probably use strong persuasion and PR against the practice of delivering aid too close to harvest season.
"Once people have satisfied their basic needs, they want luxuries."
That's true for most people, but not all (if it requires work).
I found the original article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060827/ts_afp/somaliaunresttradeeconomy_060827154319). Here's a quote:
"Mogadishu traders, who contributed 130,000 dollars (102,000 euros) to the SICS, complained that humanitarian groups had developed a pattern of delivering supplies during harvest season, cutting into demand for local goods."
It sounds like an accusation of either malicious intent or incompetence, and seems to support Rothbard's case that aid usually does more harm than good.
On the other hand, Rothbard was writing about Somalia during the civil war and Africa in general under oppressive governments. Maybe the high level of freedom and stability there now is allowing Somalis to use aid to their long-term advantage as you say.
For better or worse, the Somali business community is against the practice of delivering aid too close to harvest season, and the courts are in lockstep with them.
Post a Comment
<< Home