MaxShimba
Platinum Member
- Apr 11, 2008
- 36,008
- 4,093
Its hard to imagine now, but in the heady days of the 1960s, much of the continent was no less prosperous than South Korea or Malaysia. While those Asian nations have transformed themselves into economic "tigers," however, gross domestic products across Africa shrank during the last two decades of the twentieth century. Africans are getting poorer, not richer. They are living shorter, hungrier lives.
How can one continent be so out of step with humankinds march of progress? Everyone agrees that Africans are desperately poor and typically endure governments that are, to varying degrees, corrupt and capricious. The dispute is about causes and consequences. One groupcall it the poverty-first campbelieves African governments are so lousy precisely because their countries are so poor. The other groupthe governance-first campholds that Africans are impoverished because their rulers keep them that way. The argument may seem pedantic, but there are billions of dollars at stake, and millions of lives. The fundamental question is whether those who are well-off can salve a continents suffering, or if, for all our good intentions, Africans are really on their own
How can one continent be so out of step with humankinds march of progress? Everyone agrees that Africans are desperately poor and typically endure governments that are, to varying degrees, corrupt and capricious. The dispute is about causes and consequences. One groupcall it the poverty-first campbelieves African governments are so lousy precisely because their countries are so poor. The other groupthe governance-first campholds that Africans are impoverished because their rulers keep them that way. The argument may seem pedantic, but there are billions of dollars at stake, and millions of lives. The fundamental question is whether those who are well-off can salve a continents suffering, or if, for all our good intentions, Africans are really on their own