Submitted by Sameer Dossani, Aug 30, 2007 23:47

Wow. This article gets the story wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin. I mean maybe the Malthusian references make sense in some economics text book, but let's talk about the real world. In the real world, capital flight from Africa outweighs aid by a factor of 3. Also in the real world, governments are restricted on what industrial policies they can follow (and health and education policies) by severe budget caps imposed by the International Monetary Fund. If that institution denies its seal of approval, governments have no access to aid money that in many cases is used to pay unsustainable debts. Even when those debts are cancelled, as some of them were in 2005, countries are keen to adhere to the IMF rules, including guidelines on how much (or little) to tax multinational companies involved in resource extraction.

Another example used to prove Clark's point is that of British India. What happened at that time was far from the British giving some kind of enlightened boost to India, it was pure theft. Clark talks about de-industrialization as if it is morally neutral. It was a deliberate policy by the British to put their Bengali competitors (who were outpacing them in the manufacture of steam engines and fanufactured clothing) out of business. See here and here for references.

What we're talking about is theft, not helping determine development strategies that should be up to citizens and their democratically elected representatives. Those who want to help Africa should first stop stealing from Africa.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.