:Title: George Ayittey : TED Talk: Cheetahs vs Hippos :Author: Jim Carroll :Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:32:32 PDT :Modified: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:39:09 PDT :URL: http://www.ned.com/group/econo-politics/news/0/ The inspiration for this group is a talk that I saw at TED recently where George Ayittey talks about the economic realities of Africa, and how the local governments are not set up to foster economic growth. http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/151 .. raw:: html

I'd like to dissect the talk, and connect the parts to other sources in an effort to increase my understanding that I'm sure others already have. ---- **Comments** :Author: Jim Carroll :Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:55:24 PDT So he talks about the informal economy, and the different traditional economy. Did anyone catch the difference between these two? They both seem to be under-the-table. ---- :Author: David Frayne :Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:26:40 PDT I'm guessing the difference is that the informal economy deals with modern goods and services traded under the table, whereas the traditional economy deals with ancient technology (such as herbal remedies) that hasn't ever been recognised by the modern economy. ---- :Author: Linda Nowakowski :Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:15:32 PDT This is precisely, exactly what I see happening in Opok Farm Village. The need is to build the extended family from a group of child-headed households. I need to watch that a couple of more times. Thanks, Jim. ---- :Author: John Powers :Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:57:30 PDT I may be quite wrong, but I don't think that Ayittey is talking about about a traditional economy and an informal economy. I think he's talking about a traditional sector and an informal economy. That's plain as mud, I know, but Ayittey's critique is African governance. Part of his solution is to build upon traditional institutions, among them the marketplace. But as Ayittey, points out, traditional African notions of markets are not premised on property as an individual, but as a clan. So in most African countries there are laws more or less built upon Western ideas of individual liberty and property, but the traditional systems also must be accommodated. There are various ways of doing this across African countries, and even within countries. Another part of his solution is to encourage investment in the informal economy. Now what the informal sectors are, I think are as fuzzy as Ayittey's short hand of the traditional sector. One of the conversations I want to put out relevant to this discussion is from `Benin Mwangi`_ Africa in Business. I definitely recommend the blog, but I'm a bit miffed that my comment wasn't posted to the discussion, I'm linking to. Mwangi is an American, in banking. LOL I'm a blogger in my basement. But I think there's some ideological blind spots that happen around the provocative discussions prompted by Ayittey. It's one thing to buy into his construction that African problems are for Africans to solve, and another to try to bend everything to fall into Ayittey's world view. He is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, but the distinction Ayittey makes about traditional sector ideas of ownership get glossed over, and probably doesn't fit as neatly with AEI's agenda as neatly as people think. Anyway, my unpublished post to the thread at Benin Mwangi's site was prompted by a post about Chinese Entrepreneurs in Africa at `Dani Rodrik's blog`_. I found the comments to the post there, and actually the post itself smelling of a privileged perspective and carelessness. It's very hard to talk about "Africa" really because of so many ingrained stereotypes. My basic point of the comment was that the Chinese entrepreneurs gathered capital within the informal economy of China and invested in informal sectors in African countries--the example was Malawi. As the business grow they have to interact with the modern economy in any case. Once they're big enough they really are part of the modern economy. One of Ayittey's big fans is Emeka Okafur and at his blog `Timbuktu Chronicles`_ many businesses along this continuum are highlighted. Ayittey's talk prompted a bunch of discussion. Here are some blog posts that give a flavor of some of the discussions in blogs. `Ethan Zuckerman`_ is one of the essential ones. Ethan I think mentions Eric Hersman, aka `Hash`_. Hersman blogs as White African. His parents were Bible translators so he grew up in Sudan and Kenya. Something I love about Hash is he is able to argue in the African way--not sure how to describe what I mean. Hash is always nice, but give as well as he takes. Something else about Hash is he's a Geek and is able to translate Geek to Cheetah.`Grandiose Parlor`_ makes the argument that Africa can't discount the Hippos, something that other bloggers in Africa did as well. People are inspired by Ayittey, but "God is in the details" as they say. I've read "Africa in Chaos" and would recommend it. I ought to read "Africa Unchained." While I think his ideas are important, if for now other reason than they spark so much productive discussion, It's very hard to make sense of "Africa" instead of the diverse situations of particular places in Africa. There's a good interview with Ayittey by Bill `Moyers`_ online. .. _`Benin Mwangi`: http://beninmwangi.com/2007/08/12/whythawk-meme-on-informal-market-economies-in-africa/ .. _`Dani Rodrik's blog`: http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2007/08/chinese-entrepr.html .. _`Timbuktu Chronicles`: http://timbuktuchronicles.blogspot.com/ .. _`Ethan Zuckerman`: http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2007/06/27/pushing-the-hippo-out-of-the-frame/ .. _`Hash`: http://whiteafrican.com/?p=666 .. _`Grandiose Parlor`: http://grandioseparlor.com/2007/06/is-the-hippo-generation-becoming-irrelevant/ .. _`Moyers`: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/botswana/index.html ---- :Author: Mark Grimes :Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:27:32 PDT *some info pulled from the video* NPO/NGO's and "aid" helping the African governments..."It's like the blind leading the clueless." Fundamental question, who do we want to help in Africa? The people, or the governments? Wealth creation versus wealth redistribution three main sectors: **Modern** (where most of the corruption is, and most of the aid goes) Most of the people exist in the next two sectors...(and they sectors are governed by two tribe types, those that have no chief/leader and despise tyranny of leadership, and the sector that has a chief, but he/she is surrounded by council upon council upon council of advisors to make sure the chief if acting on behalf of the people. Decentralization of power. **Informal** (trade, black market) **Traditional** (agriculture, crafts) Western POV: I am because I am African POV: I am because WE are And African markets were dominated by women. Institute change from within and take Africa back one village at a time. Great video Jim, glad you shared it and started the group. ---- :Author: John Firth :Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:06:12 PDT A quick initial point but I think it's wrong to characterise *informal markets* as being either 'under the counter' or 'black markets'.... (with apologies for dubious use of the term in this context) An informal market can simply be bartering or exchange i.e. a 'market of exchange' based upon a mutual recognition of the others worth (what they bring to the table) that is not reliant upon the sale of goods or current market money values. After all, George Ayittey's tone when he refers to informal markets is positive and there *are* more 'markets' than the 'free marketeers' would have us believe. ;) ---- :Author: John Powers :Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:15:40 PDT The way I see it is when Ayietty is talking about the traditional sector he's not talking about agriculture and crafts per se. Ayietty talks about the traditional sector more as a paradigm, rather patterns in Africa's story, that need to be remembered and applied to the new African context. He make the point that markets are an ancient part of the African story, as well as the notion of limited government being a part of the African story--the idea of de-stooling the king. Also in the context of limited government the role that women play in markets and limiting the power of kings. I think these patterns that Ayittey references when he talks about "traditional sectors" are meaningful. But the problem is that the traditional sectors exist in real contexts and within the real contexts the logic pursued is not always in a positive direction. In most African countries there's civil law, and those laws have to accommodate the traditional sectors, for example in dealing with property. Mostly these arrangements seem awkward, and the governments--often corrupt as they are play the traditional sectors corruptly to assert power. In Uganda The Buganda had a King; the Acholi once had a king, but abandoned that model prior to Arab and European encroachment. In modern Uganda the traditional sector must be accommodated, but doing so often leads to intrigue. Fitting the traditional sector is not a simple matter. I very much agree that investments that target small enterprise and village-based economies can yield positive results for many. But those commentators who argue that it's impossible to ignore the Hippos entirely make a good point too. Some large capital investments are necessary, and in any case the governments aren't going to go away any time soon. African people do have a stake in creating more effective governments. ---- :Author: John Firth :Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:45:47 PDT John, I understand that you are quite rightly flagging up differences and I'm not sure how far George Ayittey is actually going with a 21C Pan-Africanism but I do get nervous about your immediate inferences about *limited government* and markets and civil law. Surely, the neo-liberal echoes that I'm hearing don't require explanation ? I think George Ayittey is actually saying something much simpler when he talks about traditionalism and informal markets. Isn't he really talking about 'bottom up' democracy ? Isn't that why he is appealing to the *Cheetahs* to challenge the 'top down' *Hippos* ? But I would guess that he also recognises the difficulties of his own sound bite descriptions because the list of great (post colonial) African leaders he quotes also includes those who were once *Cheetahs* who then became Life Presidents who could not be removed. A deliberate irony that tells its own subtle story and also poses the greatest challenge to the rising generation ? ---- :Author: John Powers :Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:01:10 PDT What me a neo-liberal! LOL, John, I'm not that together. I really should read Ayittey's "Africa Unchained." to get a more current handle on his thinking. Another link that may be of interest is Emeka Okafur's blog dedicated to discussing the solutions put forth there, `Africa Unchained`_ In the book "Africa in Chaos" in the chapter "Alternative Solutions to Africa's Crisis" Ayittey wrote: "As we have argued in chapter 3 and elsewhere, all Africa needs to do is to return to its roots and build on an modernize its own indigenous institutions [footnote to "Indigenous African Institutions. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational Publishers 1991] There is now a greater awareness of the need to reexamine Africa's own heritage. A return to traditional institutions will ensure not only peace but stability as well..." What I was trying to do is to point out that Ayittey's "all Africa needs to do..." point needs to be unpacked. It's not as if these "indigenous institutions" have been mothballed just waiting to be brushed off and they'll work as good as new. But that's what Ayittey seems to say over and over. There are problems with the how to, for example a widow's right to the property with the death of her husband. In most African countries traditional institutions still exist and have real legal power. But the institutional mechanisms which limited and controlled this power often have not remained robust as the relative strength of traditional institutions has been diluted. In Uganda, a very multi-ethnic country, the role of traditional institutions is often a political football. Imagine being a Ugandan. Well, I've never been to Uganda, so there's a whole bunch that I don't know that makes my imagining really difficult. But I know that I would be part of a clan. I would also have an ethnic identity within the culture. Where I live, I would be subject to civil laws, and also customary rules, that might or might not be governed by people of my own ethnic identity. Now consider an issue in Ugandan politics: `Federalism`_. The rhetoric of Federo is very much in keeping with Aiyettey's rhetoric. Maybe if I were Buganda (some Ugandans say I've got the nose to be), I would be a strong supporter, after all it seems it would probably serve my interests well. But what if I identified as one of the more than fifty other ethnic groups in Uganda? Well, then probably not so much. And what of my clan which is likely composed of people with several ethnic identifications? Warning: I'm a white American, and my understanding of Uganda is limited. I certainly mean no offense if my choice of words, like ethnic group, clan, identity, etc. is inelegant. What I'm trying to show in my imagining myself as a Ugandan is that while the traditional sector is enormously important to me, building and modernizing indigenous institutions is quite political with winners and losers (probably sore ones). In my imaging I didn't mention religion, but it's important to consider too. How to fit the notion of traditional African institutions with modern religious expression isn't an easy nut to crack either. Ayittey may well recognize the limitations of his sound bite descriptions. However, I think it's clear that spreading his sound bite descriptions far and wide is a central mission of his. He's best at critique, not at building solutions. That's not a criticism, and maybe an ill-formed opinion anyway. .. _`Africa Unchained`: http://africaunchained.blogspot.com/ .. _`Federalism`: http://www.federo.com/ ---- :Author: John Firth :Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:01:11 PDT John, you can duck the 'flattery' if you like. :) But I agree with you that Ayittey's point about traditional institutions or social relationships needs to be unpacked because it's either a polemical device which is intended to be a nudge and a wink to those in the know or he is saying something much more specific and concrete. He is obviously marking the difference between American (or European) notions of individualism and the African sense of community but I think he skips the politico-economic conclusions that might follow from those differences. A 21C emphasis on collective rather than individual social values could hold great promise and it would be interesting if the exploration of current (rather than historic) *traditionalism* opened up insights into valid social solutions based on co-operation rather than competition - but I suspect George Ayittey's argument is simply steering us back towards the 'answers' of civics and free markets. Maybe an enquiry which enabled us to look again at 'bottom up' democratic social solutions that have been chucked out with the state socialist bathwater would be even more invigorating and productive - but, despite the rhetoric, I don't think George Ayittey is travelling on that road. ---- :Author: David Braden :Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:10:22 PDT Very interesting comments John and John. I claim no deep understanding of Africa's situation - but I found the description of "vampire governments" interesting and not so different from our own - government by for and of the campaign contributor. I am also interested in the idea of the need for the cheetahs to take matters into their own hands - rather than waiting for the government to solve their problems. That is the idea behind the `Self-help Corporation`_ - and `Local Organizing and the Planetary Mind`_ to move as much decision making as close to the people affected as possible. .. _`Self-help Corporation`: http://www.aboutus.org/3DN_Self-help_Corporation .. _`Local Organizing and the Planetary Mind`: http://www.aboutus.org/3DN_Local_Organizing_and_the_Planetary_Mind ---- :Author: John Powers :Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:45:10 PDT :Modified: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:51:50 PDT After I wrote about Federalism in Uganda here I got a chance to hear what a friend in Uganda had to say about it. Funny that we'd never talked about it before. Something I find over and over is the more I know, I discover how little I know. I'm an American. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that as a people and as an idea, we're horribly off-course now. I think when people are lost it's very hard to figure out where we are, but we try to find out. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. wrote: "Europe is the source--the unique source--of the idea of individual freedom, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and cultural freedom. These ideas are European, not Asian, or African, or Middle Eastern, except by adoption." I got that quote from Caetano Veloso's book "Tropical Truth" and Veloso is in turn quoting Samuel Huntington quoting Schlesinger. Ayittey's point about the good in traditional African institutions is counter Schlesinger's insistence on the European origins of liberal values. Ayittey's point is very valuable to an American feeling that we have lost our way. One reason I think so has to do with appropriate responses to violence called terrorism. I abhor violence, but lately have found myself listening to what military theorists have to say, and I find what `John Robb`_ has to say often quite cogent. Robb stresses the importance of resiliency. In learning more about the history of African people, their genius for living well in small societies becomes evident. So Ayittey makes an important point that Africa has lessons from its traditions about liberalism (for lack of a better word). Feeling lost as an American, "individual freedom, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and cultural freedom" are all part of what course I think we should be traveling, and the path we seem to be diverging. Ayittey's bit about coming up with a list of African leaders is a trick question for Westerners for how little our media has paid attention to Africa; and when it has the distorted lens used to project its image. I thought of one of the blogosphere's best writers, Koranten Ofosu-Ammah. If you don't already know `Koranteng's Toli`_ a great pleasure awaits there. Koranteng is Ghanaian, living in the US. In the spring, around the commemoration of Ghana's 50th celebration of independence, he `posted`_ about Dr. Kofi Abrefa Busia. Not all the links in the piece seem to work, so I want to point to one 1979 by Busia Koranteng links, `Is Democracy of Universal Application?`_. Busia provides a list of essential democratic principles: * the recognition of the essential dignity of the individual and the equality of all men; * the acceptance of the principle of free and fair elections with the offer of genuine choice; * the derival of the just powers of government from the consent of the governed; * the accountability of these governments to their electorate and the acceptance of the right of genuine opposition; * the principle of justice and equity before the law, * and the cherished freedoms of speech, association, movement, conscience and religion. He then adds Tolerance and expands a bit on that. Part of Ayittey's rhetoric about traditional African institutions seems to me really to say that liberalism is not foreign to Africa. Ayittey is pointing to the principles Schlesinger and Busia are pointing to too. These principles are fundamental, but not in themselves solutions. Our task is to build institutions upon these fundamentals. Right at the end of the Reagan years, Frances Moore Lappe wrote a book "Rediscovering America's Values." It's a difficult book, as a Socratic dialog, that in some way doesn't quite work. It's very important because Moore Lappe addresses the crisis with the failure of a liberal worldwiew and the urgency for a better worldview. "Frankly, my hope in writing this book is to assist us in letting go of a worldview that I believe no longer serves us, a worldview I believe constricts our capacity to find answers to our most pressing problems. My charge will be that this worldview has failed us, both because it profoundly misunderstands our nature and because it is dogmatic, accepting, as it does, certain human-made rules as absolutes." Frances Moore Lappe is hardly: anti-individual freedom, anti-political democracy, anti-rule of law, anti-human rights, nor anti-cultural freedom. The book is not entitled "Returning to American Values" rather "Rediscovering." In a similar way, Ayittey isn't saying that all Africa need to do is to return to traditional African institutions. He's expressing that the way forward entails rediscovering deep values. Have mercy! I've blathered on so long and don't think I've made much sense. But, I thought just now of the Langston Hughes `poem`_ "The Negro Speaks of Rivers." Man, do I ever get into trouble when I get into discussions with black Americans online! Part of it is a contention that all of us American are "colored people." Oh yes, there are great troubles caused by blurring distinctions. Still Hughes' poem moves me so. Something that bothers me about Schlesinger's quote isn't of course the liberal principles he espouses, but the "ownership" he insists is important. Moore Lappe's critique that we've reified, and thereby ossified, values when we should imagine them more as living and growing qualities. Actually, I think Ayittey understands this distinction between returning and rediscovering when he talks of traditional African institutions. I maybe really wrong about that. He travels in right-wing circles in the USA. Still, my hunch is that the right wingers don't really understand how subversive Ayittey's views are to their privileged interests. "A Negro Speaks of Rivers" sings out Soul Power. I like Soul Power, that what some back in the Civil Rights used to render the Gandhian construct `satyagraha`_. The ways of satygraha in the American context is a good example of how Ayittey's traditional African institutions might be interpreted in the new African reality. So I say: Ungawah--Soul Power! .. _`John Robb`: http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/ .. _`Koranteng's Toli`: http://koranteng.blogspot.com/ .. _`posted`: http://koranteng.blogspot.com/2007/03/busia-papers.html .. _`Is Democracy of Universal Application?`: http://home.comcast.net/~amaah/writings/democracy-universal.html .. _`poem`: http://www.duboislc.org/ShadesOfBlack/LangstonHughes.html .. _`satyagraha`: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha ---- :Author: Christina Jordan :Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:08:58 PDT :Modified: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:10:00 PDT haven't been able to watch the video, but I read some of the terms I am seeing in the following ways: 1. **the informal market** is a term commonly used for businesses that operate beneath the radar of national tax authorities. You can call it black market, but in Africa (unlike in Europe or the USA) it's not an intentionally dodgy state of affairs on the part of the small business-person. Quite simply put, many countries in Africa have very week tax administration and collection systems. So the result is that the vast majority of African business activity happens beyond the governments' capacity to record and follow it. Tax administration systems were typically introduced by the colonialists, who simply didn't design those systems to take the small African traders and market sellers into account. In today's African market setting, such traders expect to pay a small market fee that contributes to running of a market they participate in, but their incomes from doing business at those markets are never recorded or taxed, or counted into GDP. They are the informal sector, they are *everywhere*, but they do not represent a tax base for the government budgets. Small home based businesses are also everywhere - in the same black hole of unrecorded *informality*. 2. The **traditional African economy** revolves around and is driven by ONE thing: family values. In the USA, we use the term in political rhetoric. In Europe, many countries have tried to incorporate family values into government policies. In Africa, every single person from a peasant farmer to the President is expected to share what s/he's got to contribute to the well-being of their extended family. The clan owns and apportions to you the land you live on in the village you come from. No matter if you were born somewhere else, you are *always* from the place where your clan's land lies. If you leave that place (ostensibly for better opportunities), you simply can not ever come back empty handed. When someone from the clan has achieved a high position, it is UNTHINKABLE that they would not do whatever they can to improve their family and clan's wellbeing through that position. In the west, we call it nepotism. In Africa, they call it family duty - and the pressure on public servants and business people to share with their families in the village is very, *very* high. Now combine that with low salary levels and *voila* you've got the perfect conditions for seeing what we in the west call corruption. And it's not just at high levels of influence. When it's school fees time for their kids, the traffic police stop more cars and collect more bribes *in order to afford to send their kids to school.* On their $100/month salaries, they would not be able to otherwise. From one angle it seems slimy, but through another lens that policeman who collects a bribe is being a good father. More on clans that I've been learning about lately.... to post later. Fab discussion all! ---- :Author: Christina Jordan :Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:15:45 PDT Linda Nowakowski said: This is precisely, exactly what I see happening in Opok Farm Village. Linda, since I can't see the video, can you expand on this thought? ---- :Author: Rory Turner :Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:33:44 PDT http://www.jstor.org/view/00104175/ap010075/01a00060/0 I wish this link gave the whole of this marvelous article. Christina is as usual on the mark about the deep problems that the two publics (One official and post colonial, the other local and thickly stranded) have on politics and action. That's why Ayittey's approach and Christina's is so critical, look to the strength and virtues of partnerships with true muscle whether informal or traditional, and build on them. ---- :Author: Rory Turner :Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:37:00 PDT From this (http://www.codesria.org/Links/conferences/accra/osaghae.pdf) nice commentary on Ekeh's work: As Ekeh points out, a plunderer of funds in the civic public “would not be a good man were he to channel all his lucky gains to his private purse. He will only continue to be a good man if he channels part of the largesse from the civic public to the primordial public…The unwritten law of the dialectics is that it is legitimate to rob the civic public in order to strengthen the primordial public” (p.108). ---- :Author: John Powers :Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:02:49 PDT Christina's post is so great. Speaking about the kinship system as a white no-nothing American like me is just so hazardous, I keep stepping in it. But it's good to learn and so hazards come with the territory. It's hard to talk or listen to talk about African issues without the issue of what Christina is talking about with the traditional African economy coming up. When I hear "the big man" school of governance, my American-centric racism detector sounds an alarm. Goodness knows that much written and said about Africa IS racist but all that sounds racist often does not have a racist intent behind it. From the comments left at Dani Rodrick's `blog post`_ I referenced earlier was a link to a paper dealing with these kinship systems having an adverse impact of economic development, `The Kin System As Poverty Trap?`_ It's very important to find ways of talking and thinking about these values. Of course much more important for Africans to talk. Aiyttey's emphasis on traditional values is very important, but complicated. For example the situation in Uganda where people from the western part where Museveni hails are often thought to hold too much power by virtue of patronage. But when I read the World Bank piece I just linked to about kin systems, I thought of a 1968 book, "Pigs for our Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People" by Roy Rappaport. Rapapport worked to develop a cybernetic anthropology. The article at Wikipedia `Human ecosystem`_ is a good primer. It seems equally absurd to me to say that all Africa needs to do is to return to a traditional system as it does to say that all Africa needs to do is to let go of the mores that hold Africa back. The cybernetic approach that Rappaport pioneered provides a way to begin to understand complex systems like the traditional sector. There is great power in Aiyttey's thesis, but it's a mistake I think, to take what he says about the traditional sector on surface value. We get stuck when we imagine culture as a thing fixed. The focus on functional relationships that Rappaport used provides a clearer understanding of of dynamic information systems. .. _`blog post`: http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2007/08/chinese-entrepr.html .. _`The Kin System As Poverty Trap?`: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2005/05/03/000012009_20050503101120/Rendered/PDF/wps3575.pdf .. _`Human ecosystem`: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_ecosystem ---- :Author: Christina Jordan :Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:09:11 PDT :Modified: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:11:54 PDT The basic asset that every family has is land. On or associated with adding value to that land (and thereby increasing the wealth of the whole clan) we also have traditional assets that are commutable: people and livestock. Traditional marriage is an economic exchange between families. We'll give your family one of our daughters if you give us some of your livestock. If she's actually leaving the clan (sometimes encompassing thousands of families), the price should be higher, because of the loss she represents to the clan. If she's been educated, the price will also be higher, because the value she adds to the family she's joining is higher. The traditional clans are like ethnically based states within kingdoms (or tribes/nations). In the old days arranged marriages were also a form of diplomacy. So when we talk about traditional African economies, it's not about crafts & agriculture. Those are simply commodities from the traditional systems which can carry over into a western system. For me, when you talk about traditional African economies, you're talking about whole different systems of exchange, where the extended family unit (the land-owning clan within a linguistically homogenous kingdom) is a self-governing socio-economic whole. I've even heard of clans who specialize - one example is the clan in the Baganda tribe that makes the royal drums. No drum will ever be used by the royal family that is not made by that clan. It would greatly upset the order of things. In an office setting here, you find people expecting transport and food allowances in addition to their salaries. At the beginning I found this ridiculously difficult to understand, until I realized that it has roots in the traditional system of clan/family based governance. When your elders are called for a meeting to discuss an issue that's relevant to your life (your marriage, a dispute you are in, an opportunity you are considering), it's on you or your parents to provide the food and drink - a goat to slaughter, some local brew maybe. It's also upon you to honor their time with a gift (their only compensation), and to pay their transport costs. That's how the community governance system sustains itself. So when people go to work, they expect the same thing from an employer. Either food or a food allowance, your gift of compensation, and a transport allowance. I've often thought about the kinship system as a poverty trap, but I am actually not so sure that's really it. It's not the kinship system that keeps people poor, but rather the conflict between the kinship system and western property systems that messes things up. In our system we measure success by how much you've personally gained; in the African traditional system your success is measured by how much value you've added to the clan. I can think of a concrete example where this clashes all the time: imagine a family member from the village comes unannounced to a small business person's home in a town somewhere to ask for help for - say - a sick child who needs medical attention back in the village. They have (typically) come without the return bus fare to get back home, and without means to sustain themselves in town. As a family member who has a business, you absolutely can not say "I don't have the money to help you" and put that day's earnings back into your business. Your duty is to share what you have with your family... and you will have to host that person in your home until you've come up with a way to give them what they need. In terms of western measures of success, you are doomed. But in terms of African traditional values it's the *right* thing to do to help a sick child in the village who is, after all, your family. ... more to share on the effort to rejuvenate the clan system in Northern Uganda. Fascinating stuff, IMO. ---- :Author: Christina Jordan :Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:43:16 PDT Oh - but then there are also the nomadic tribes. I wonder how they differ. and a caveat - my observations are only that - an attempt at making sense out of what I *think* I've learned about Uganda... but it's so different and often hard to understand on some levels that I really could have it all wrong. ---- :Author: John Powers :Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:51:47 PDT "It's not the kinship system that keeps people poor, but rather the conflict between the kinship system and western property systems that messes things up." That's such a good observation. Aiyttey makes the point too. But somehow western property systems have to be accounted for in the system. I don't think that such accommodation is only a matter for African people to figure out. The disastrous American invasion and occupation of Iraq really highlights the failures of thinking as we tend to about globalization. The folly of imagining Iraq as a freemarket nirvana seems incredible. Yet most Americans, still think it's "our way or the highway." John Firth's "neo-liberal echoes" he was hearing from me gave me pause, because I'm desperate to find out how we've gone so wrong and to learn changes myself. I didn't like The Kin System As Poverty Trap? paper. I have to say that plainly because I realize that it may have seemed as if I was holding up that article as an example of Rappaport's emphasis on functional relationships in information flows. The authors of that paper proceed from the premise that a modern economy functions with the "right" rules, and foremost the paramount value of efficiency. If Christina is right--and I think she probably is--that it's, "the conflict between the kinship system and western property systems that messes things up" it doesn't necessarily follow that the solution is simply to banish western property systems. Another way is to look at where the conflicts are in functional relationships and to improve their functionality. ---- :Author: Linda Nowakowski :Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:58:10 PDT For Christina: Identifies the Cheetah generation - a new breed of Africans who brook no nonsense about corruption. They understand what Accountability and democracy are. THey do no wait for government to do things for them. Hippo generation - the ruling elite who are stuck complaining about colonialism and imperialism. You can not ask them to change things because they benefit from the status quo. Africa is rich in mineral resources but these resources are not being used to lift Africa out of poverty. People want to help. Help has been turned into a theatre of the absurd - the blind leading the clueless. Africa's begging bowl leaks. Wealth made in Africa leaves Africa. Each year: Corruption - $148 billion Capital flight - $80 billion Food imports - $20 billion In the '60s Africa not only fed itself, it exported food. Something went wrong. We could spend all day talking about how. FOrget it. Move on to the next chapter. Who do we want to help in Africa? The people or the government (leaders)? A previous speaker referred to the past leadership in Africa as abysmal - that is a charitable characterization. Since 1960 there have been 204 African heads of state. Asked people to identify just 20 good leaders. Came up with Mandela, Kruma, Arrera, Kinyata and someone even suggested Edi Amin..... They couldn't get past 15. The leaders of Africa have been a group of military foo-foo heads, Swiss Bank Socialists, Crocodile liberators, vampire elite sucking the economic vitality out of their people. Bandits enriching themselves and their cronies. They are all rich. Where does the wealth come from? Wealth creation? No. It is scraped off of the backs of their people - wealth redistribution. The second false premise: We sometimes think there is something called a government that cares about the people and serves the interest of the people. It has been said that in Africa there are two problems: rats and government. If we want to help Africa, we need to know where Africans are. There are 3 sectors in Africa: 1. Modern - The abode of the elites, the seat of government. In most of Africa it is not functional. It is rather the source of the problems. This is where development money and aid has gone. 2. Informal - 3. Traditional - Where Africa produces agriculture. Why it can't feed itself. Most of the people, the real people are in the informal and traditional sectors. You can not help Africa by ignoring the traditonal and informal sectors. We need to know how they work. Indigenious political heritage - Traditionally Africans hate governemnts. Traditionally Africans are organized into tribes and want to have nothing to do with central authority. No chiefs. These are represented by the Ibu and the Somali. There are tribes with chiefs but they have made sure that the chiefs are surrounded with council upon council to prevent them from abusing power. For example: in one tribe the chief can't pass a law without approval of the council of elders. If the chief doesn't rule for the people, the people remove or abandon the chief and go someplace else and set up a new settlement. Africa has been a model of confederacy characterized by a great deal of devolution of authority and decentralization of power. In the traditional sector the means of production is privately owned in an extended family system. In the west the basic unit is the individual. In America things center on I. In Africa it centers on we. The extended family pools resources together. They decide what to do. They decide what to produce. When they produce, they sell in the market and the profit is theirs to keep...not to give to the chief. We had a free market system for a long time. Market activity has been dominated by women. WHen the west came it became a different kind of capitalism, a western capitalism. Then the leaders said that Africans were ready for socialism. But a particular kind of socialism - Swiss Bank Socialism which allowed the leaders to take the money and deposit it in Switzerland. We must go back to African's indiginous systems. Go back to find the Africans in the traditon and informal sectors. He is trying to get the African diaspora to invest in these sectors - for example big boat building that they can catch bigger fish and employ more people and generate wealth and have external effects in the economy. There is also traditional medicine. And investment in agriculture. Also invest in change and take Africa back one village at a time. The develpment of Opok Farms Village will be an investment in agriculture. The investment in the learn by doing educational system will be grass roots and usable and will empower the people from the grass roots. The biggest concern that I have is how much of the traditional knowledge has been lost. This kind of development can be revolutionary in that it empowers the people to success without outside assistance and govenment intervention. This is powerful stuff. Does that help, Christina? You explanation certainly makes it much clearer! ---- :Author: John Powers :Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:57:17 PDT Wow Linda, if you ever need a second job, doing close captions for TV shows might be a good fit. What's above seems an accurate transcription of Aiyttey's talk. So cool that you post it here. ---- :Author: David Frayne :Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:54:36 PDT Christina, the problems you describe are so fascinating. 10 years ago I came up with the idea of eradicating poverty through real estate investment, which works in the USA and other countries which treat land as a productive commodity and people as inherently "placeless". But I can see it wouldn't work in Africa, or any place which treated people as somehow inherently connected to land. I am working on a variation now not based on monetizing the value of real estate. The idea is to look for ways to unleash people's capacity to make other people's lives wonderful. (Like the story about hell being where people try to feed themselves with 3 foot chopsticks and heaven being where people feed each other with 3 foot chopsticks. You can't make your own life wonderful. You can only do it for others.) ---- :Author: Jim Carroll :Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:35:55 PDT Thank you everyone, I have just learned (what feels like) critical underpinnings of understanding a whole culture that up until now just seemed 'poor.' With this understanding, every once in a while, I see a glimpse my own western ways as poor with regard to family and community. ---- :Author: Jeff Mowatt :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:32:30 PDT Some years ago a friend, also from Ghana explained the extended family system to me and at the time I found it difficult to understand. He'd been asking me to save old shoes which he'd take back on his next visit. What he described at first seemed like his moderately wealthy family had obliged all their relatives to work as servants. On the contrary, they had been taken into the extended family when parents had died in the absence of a formal welfare system. It's come back to me now because It's just dawned on me that this Traditional family culture and welfare is exactly where I've been heading, while thinking of it as somethibg new. African traditionalism is inherently people-centric and pro community investment. It is us who need to catch up with their way of thinking. True enough, real estate investment won't do much for poverty in Africa but intiatives on land ownership/usage such as the UN Habitat's Global Land Tools Network might well provide us with new tools to develop opportunity. ---- :Author: John Firth :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:12:55 PDT :Modified: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:16:18 PDT *John Powers said:" "If Christina is right--and I think she probably is--that it's, "the conflict between the kinship system and western property systems that messes things up" it doesn't necessarily follow that the solution is simply to banish western property systems." I know I've truncated that quote but my simple question is : *Why Not?* One of the pressing problems for the developing world (not just Africa) is the issue of traditional land rights and the conflict with Western notions of property ownership and markets which, in too many countries were used by the ruling elite to simply steal development land from settled communities that had traditional 'ownership' or occupation of the land. This was/is happening, for example, in the 'reconstruction' after the Tsunami when fishing communities with established 'traditional' land tenure were faced with eviction from prime beach locations as developers laid claim to their land using state/national property laws. I think this example highlights a key point of conflict and also tests our own assumptions. On the one hand we recognise a social injustice and we might also romanticise lost concepts of ownership (*ask the Native Americans - watch some Westerns !* ) but we then start using terms like 'traditional' which seem to be loaded with implicit patronising judgments. Aren't we often really saying: Well, it's *traditional* - meaning quaint - but that's not how we do business any more. Maybe we should pause to consider that *traditional* may simply be right when it places value on the collective and the social inclusiveness of the group - however that group may be defined. But, once we do, then we have to carry the logic through into political and economic solutions from a completely different perspective. The World Bank certainly does not share that perspective - but do the Cheetahs ? Proudhon famously claimed that all property is theft - and when it comes to the conflict between the notion of *land rights* and *land ownership* that assertion would unfortunately still ring true in much of the developing world. But how do you protect traditional land rights in the face of *enforced* free markets and conflicting free market values ? ---- :Author: Jeff Mowatt :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:57:49 PDT :Modified: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:35:24 PDT The Global Land Tool Network (GLTN) aims to establish a continuum of land rights, rather than just focus on individual land titling; improve and develop pro poor land management as well as land tenure tools; unblock existing initiatives; assist in strengthening existing land networks; improve global coordination on land; assist in the development of gendered tools which are affordable and useful to the grassroots; and improve the general dissemination of knowledge about how to implement security of tenure. Read more... http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=503 ---- :Author: John Firth :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:20:59 PDT :Modified: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:34:42 PDT someone (at) btinternet.com said: *How? Why not look into what I mentioned in the preceding post?* I will do that. It's just that I was writing my contribution while you were posting so I hadn't read it. :) _________________________________________________________________________ *Edit*: Removed reference to contributors need to use real names on but as the 'someone' has now materialised as Jeff I've changed the entry . :D ---- :Author: Jeff Mowatt :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:39:21 PDT :Modified: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:36:24 PDT BTW - The presence of the Community Land Partnership described as one of the tools is a little know success of networking with Omidyar which brought Islamic finance advocate Chris Cook into contact with Henry Georgist Alanna Hartzog who leads the project in Kenya. ---- :Author: Christina Jordan :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:10:55 PDT Jim thank you for starting this discussion. It's a delight to try and put some of this into words because it's been an issue that is very real in my work right now. Recently in Gulu I was seriously starting to think the clan system would blow a hole in the Opok Farms concept. I'd `started out`_ with the premise that many of the child headed families didn't have a place to go. When I started interviewing people about the problem I started hearing for the first time about local government and religious leader efforts to sensitize people in the IDP camps about how the traditional clan systems used to work, and what they need to do to reinstate those systems. One of the key messages being delivered is that the clans need to track down their missing children and clan members and start to reapportion their land so that everyone has enough. There is evidence of that happening. A priest told me of being encouraged by the clan committees starting to visit the orphanage at Lacor hospital. He knew of two cases just the previous week where children had been identified and taken to live with family members. We've heard about several clan meetings taking place to discuss land issues. LiA's Morris Okello was very excited when his father called him a few days ago with news that their family had received a few thousand acres. People are taking this very seriously. So to say right now that these orphaned families don't have a place to go is technically not true. If all goes well with revitalizing the clan system, then they will have a place to go. The question remains, what will they do when they get there? The other question is, is all going well? In an interview with an organization that supports child-headed households in Gulu, we learned that the problems I'd thought were there actually *are* there... the process of revitalizing the clan welfare system is a process in which the child-headed families often don't have anyone representing them. The process has really just stareted in the past few months, but already the sense is that too many are getting left out. The relatives who traditionally should care for them (normally the uncles on their father's side) see them as a heavy burden. And you can forgive that at a certain level, since for the past 20 years they've *not* had the land as an asset and are, indeed, some of the most poverty-afflicted people on the planet. The traditional Acholi clan system in Northern Uganda became completely handicapped to function as it should when everyone moved away from the land and into the camps. And in a war-zone, anything goes. Idleness, moral corruption, horrendous health and sanitation, rampant HIV/AIDS, petty gossip, conspiring to taking sides in the war, dealing with the pain and loss of death, intense desires for vengeance, the trauma of child abduction and disturbing rates of defilement and teenage pregnancies with untraceable fathers. The war and it's resulting poverty in terms of both western and Acholi systems has ripped the fabric of Acholi society to shreds in many ways. Another very pressing problem is, so many people have spent so long in the IDP camps (20 years for some!) that they do not know what to do with their land. jumping into the Western style economy of earthly errors offers the easiest immediate answer to improving the family's immediate well-being. so they chop down the forest for firewood and charcoal, then slash and burn to make cash crops while our families are still living in the camps. sounds easy enough, especially since the children and youth don't know how to farm - they have no experience living on the land. Their people are also dispersed, so they are short on labor to make much else happen. But of course, in doing that, they destroy the productivity of the only asset they really have. I've even been approached on the roadside in IDP camps by young men telling me they wanted to sell me their land. The counter-current is a strong fear that "investors" will wrestle the land away from the clans. So the Opok Farms concept has evolved a bit. in the local culture it can't be conceived of in terms of a place where anyone (except our family) would be expected - from the outset - to resettle to indefinitely. Some people might stay on, but what's really needed (we feel) is a transitional oasis where the most vulnerable children (the boarding school), IDP camp youth (vocational training), and long idle adults (contracted farm workers with additional acreage to farm for their own gain) can come and learn *how* to manage and add value to their own family land, in ways that don't destroy the most valuable core asset they have. Here's the latest `project description`_. My objective for the child families in this context has become to make sure that when the children leave the school they will no longer be seen as a burden to the overstretched clan welfare system, but as assets in terms of the value they can add to the clan. Youth and adults who pass through the programs will radiate the concepts and values out to their own families, villages and clans as those structures continue to be restored. Northern Uganda offers such a fascinatingly interesting blank slate for making everything re-newed. The war has been terrible - no doubt about that - but the one GOOD thing that's happened is that the (incredibly rich and fertile) land has been restored to such a pristine natural state. The clan leadership and governance systems have never disappeared, so are easy to bring back into active play in revitalizing and administering traditional acholi economics. And since under that system every farmer can do what he wants to do with his land (including sell his produce in very western seeming ways), it's completely conceivable to me to imagine a peaceful coexistence of the two systems emerging there in the post-war era. Community based asset management, where governance structures are family based and trade opportunities are potentially worldwide. Thanks again, Jim, for the opportunity to share on this interesting set of very timely issues for us working on the Opok Farms project. I promise not to be so wordy in my next post to this thread! .. _`project description`: http://www.ned.com/group/opokfarms/ws/index/ .. _`started out`: http://www.omidyar.net/user/u618296607/news/18/ ---- :Author: John Firth :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:33:00 PDT Hi 'Jeff Someone' and welcome to ! ;) I understand and can see how the UN initiative promotes the continuation of existing land rights. Immediately after the Tsunami I was involved in helping flag up the importance of protecting land rights for devastated communities. No great deal on my part but I mention it here because it highlights the problems that arise when, as in the case of the Tsunami, the slate is literally wiped clean. `The Oxfam Report on Land Rights in Aceh`_ is worth reading to drive this point home. But the removal of land rights by imposing markets in real estate based on private or corporate ownership can be as devastating as natural disasters for communities in Africa whose collective social values and relationships revolve around their land rights. I am in broad agreement with the UN initiative but I wonder if it fits and possibly works best where existing land rights are not rubbing up against the pressures of industrialisation and urbanisation. Surely those are the pressure points where the 'traditional' rights and values come into the sharpest conflict with the whole apparatus of 21C capitalism ? `The International Alliance of Inhabitants`_ are one of the many organisations speaking for the slum dwellers and the dispossessed in the developing world and I think their grievances should at least be noted here as a warning for the Cheetahs if they really do want to stop the social fractures that follow when 'traditional' land rights are ignored. .. _`The Oxfam Report on Land Rights in Aceh`: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/conflict_disasters/downloads/bn_tsunami_twoyears.pdf .. _`The International Alliance of Inhabitants`: http://www.habitants.org/article/frontpage/15/140 ---- :Author: David Braden :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:32:53 PDT Thank you Christina and others for the information on the clan system. I have been reluctant to speculate on how the `Self-help Corporation`_ would work in other cultures because I know that I do not understand those cultures. Reading this discussion it occurs to me that I am trying to import aspects of the clan system into the western property system. In the SHC it is the corporation/clan that acquires assets and the corporation/clan that takes responsibility to see that each of its members can contribute to the well being of the whole. From SHC: For conceptual purposes you can compare a self-help corporation to the immigrant family that starts a restaurant as a family business. Father takes odd jobs to supplement the income, mother works in the kitchen and the kids wait tables. Everyone involved gets fed and a place to sleep but most of the cash goes back into the business. In this way, and with other kinds of businesses, many immigrant families in the US have bootstrapped their way to financial security. A self-help corporation has the same goal. Further, to the extent that cash proceeds can be reinvested in the business, and not disbursed to pay for labor, a self-help corporation has the same economic advantage. So a traditional Acholi clan - once they regain their land - would decide as a group how they would employ their collective resources as an investment in selected members of the clan - who would then be obligated to share their success with other clan members. That process in my family, and the fact that many people I dealt with had problems because they did not have those family resources, is the core idea that led to the SHC. The biggest problem I see is that the clan system is inherently divisive in that each of us would be in a clan that was more or less successful - and members of the less successful are likely to be envious of those in the more successful. That is why I like a "community investment enterprise" for each `locality`_. .. _`Self-help Corporation`: http://www.aboutus.org/3DN_Self-help_Corporation .. _locality: http://www.aboutus.org/3DN_locality ---- :Author: John Firth :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:49:25 PDT *In his closing remarks David said:* *The biggest problem I see is that the clan system is inherently divisive in that each of us would be in a clan that was more or less successful - and members of the less successful are likely to be envious of those in the more successful. That is why I like a "community investment enterprise" for each locality.* Can I question this ? Aren't there assumptions here that 'competition' and 'social envy' will automatically arise as if they were part of some universal natural order ? It could be argued that the concepts are products of our individuated societies and they are not necessarily part of societies based on collective values. Now, it may be true that the concepts of 'competition' and 'social envy' *are* universal but I am simply suggesting that the assumption would need to be tested - just as the assertion that "the clan system is inherently divisive" might also require further supporting evidence. ---- :Author: David Braden :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:58:02 PDT John said: just as the assertion that "the clan system is inherently divisive" might also require further supporting evidence. Point taken - although I only asserted that "members of the less successful are likely to be envious" :) ---- :Author: David Braden :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:10:47 PDT I would also challenge the assumption the competition_ is bad. Competition does not lead to "conflict" so long as all the competitors agree that the rules are fair and agree to play by those rules. .. _competition: http://www.aboutus.org/3DN_conflict_competition_and_symbiosis_synergy ---- :Author: John Firth :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:22:32 PDT I know, but I was also asking if that was necessarily true ? In theory, if all of the clans can meet all of their basic needs and have sufficient surplus to provide security for the future and to meet some of there immediate 'wants' can we assume that they will still be envious of the more 'successful' ? More successful at what ? Envious of whom ? The members of the other clan (to whom your clan is probably related through marriage) who have more cattle ? I'm not trying to be clever here and I don't have the answer to my own questions - but Christina has already pointed out some of the difficulties that can arise when we don't pause to challenge our own baggage of assumptions ........so I'm just trying to apply that challenge. No more, no less ! :) ---- :Author: John Firth :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:32:55 PDT :Modified: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:33:19 PDT David Braden said: *I would also challenge the assumption the competition is bad. Competition does not lead to "conflict" so long as all the competitors agree that the rules are fair and agree to play by those rules.* David, I don't disagree with that although it does, of course, reflect the ideal and maybe even provides a reasonable rule of thumb for measuring a just society. ---- :Author: David Braden :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:36:13 PDT John said: . . . it does, of course, reflect the ideal and maybe even provides a reasonable rule of thumb for measuring a just society. This is where I like the idea of cheetas. As each of us makes choices on who we will deal with and how we will spend our lives, we create the world for ourselves and everyone around us. I am saying that We should not wait for someone else to create the world we want - and understanding how conflict, competition and symbiosis/synergy work in the whole system is one of the steps for more and more of us making better choices. ---- :Author: John Firth :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:42:03 PDT Looks like we're agreeing to agree ! :D ---- :Author: Chris Cook :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:20:54 PDT My ears are burning! Just assimilating what Christina was saying in connection to the total mismatch between "Western" property rights and traditional African "community/clan" - based methods. The very idea that individuals can "own" land absolutely and permanently is incomprehensible to most Africans. I think that the key to success lies in the use of "Open" Corporate entities to encapsulate the bundle of rights and obligations that constitutes the "Property" relationship. The "Community Partnership" is in essence not only a simple, consensual and collaborative concept but one which has existed for thousands of years. It's a matter of finding the right language, I think. Jeff Mowatt said: BTW - The presence of the Community Land Partnership described as one of the tools is a little know success of networking with Omidyar which brought Islamic finance advocate Chris Cook into contact with Henry Georgist Alanna Hartzog who leads the project in Kenya. ---- :Author: John Powers :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:38:09 PDT John Firth quoted me: "If Christina is right--and I think she probably is--that it's, "the conflict between the kinship system and western property systems that messes things up" it doesn't necessarily follow that the solution is simply to banish western property systems." The he asks: "I know I've truncated that quote but my simple question is : Why Not?" My point is that the place to look for solutions isn't in the clashing systems, but in the functional relationships between the systems. Perhaps I'm too simplistic, but I rather take for granted that the two systems exist and getting rid of either of them is just to big a task to contemplate. A couple of weeks ago I had visitors here. My brother and his wife brought their two girls and a couple of my adult nieces from my sister's family came up. I was particularly charmed by my nine year old niece. There is something truly miraculous about children my niece's age. When I taught elementary school third grade teachers would talk about the children towards the end of the year catching fourth-grade-itis. Children that age are figuring things out and no longer in thrall of adults. Silly uncle that I am I tried to get Emma to bark like a dog. I slyly brought up the subject of animal communication and then asked, "How does a dog sound?" My niece gave me a greasy eyeball. She thought something strange about my question. Noting her hesitation I turned and looked at my sister-in-law then back at my niece and said "Didn't your parents ever teach you animal sounds?" That little bit of parental guilt did the trick and got my sister-in-law barking. But wise Emma demurred. It's a silly story, but illustrates how people negotiate through the world very aware of meta-representations. When it comes to holding two contradictory notions in our heads, it seems that's a feature not a bug. Frances Moore Lappe's book "Rediscovering America's Values" was important for me because she squarely looked at the fact that the Liberal tradition just isn't functioning well enough nowadays; that is functioning well as a worldview. A worldview is a set of interlocking ideas. As people we need consistency and coherence in the ways our ideas fit together. Some people think the moon is made of cheese. I know that the moon is not made of cheese, but I also know that some people believe so. We need a worldview. Moore Lappe points out that a worldview, at least of the sort we need, is not dogma. Rather examining premises and a willingness to probe the component values distinguishes a worldview from a fixed idea or dogma. There are two threads to this mess: first that people operate with a set of ideas about how things work, and with an awareness that part of the way things are is people have different sets of ideas. Busia's list of essential democratic values that I quoted and including tolerance are values that Ayittey advances too. A value that Ayittey would be sure to include would be: "People respond to incentives." Ayittey and Busia also advance the notion that these values are not foreign to Africa. Busia asks: "Is Democracy of Universal Application?" I'd answer, "yes." But that answer is not to say that all democracy will look the same. Overwhelmingly I identify more with the Cheetahs. But the way I see it is Cheetahs and Hippos exist in a complex human ecosystem. As much as I'd feel comfortable putting "Death to the Hippos" in Ayittey's mouth; I realize such sentiment is besides his point that we actually pay attention to human empowerment instead of focusing on governments and high capital technical solutions. I think he's saying the good fight is not so much to battle the Hippos as to make sure the Cheetahs are well fed. People are good at negotiating various thought systems. Changes to the thought systems happens, like most change, from the margins in. It's the actual doing that gets the changes done. Ayittey is very concerned with values, but not so much concerned with ideologies. On the radio earlier this week I heard excerpts from a speech given by Wangari Matthai at the University of Pittsburgh where she received here masters of science degree. I've heard Matthai speak before and am always moved. She talked about after her Ph.d. and working on the faculty at university she and other women faculty were working on programs for a UN Year of Women. They were concerned with equitable treatment at the university. But about that time she met with a group of Kenyan women also working to develop programs. What they were concerned with were life and death issues. That was part of her movement towards her involvement of the Green Belt Movement, but there's so much more. Nonetheless, the basic problems of survival the women she met with were struggling became for Matthai the most pressing ones. They agreed to plant trees, one of the women said they didn't know how. Matthai answered that she didn't either, but they could find out how. Most of you probably know Matthai's story better than I. What I take from her story, and how she was oppressed for her efforts to plant trees, concerns this interaction between traditional and modern. A story of conflict, yes, however the important part is not the conflict but ultimately figuring out ways that work. She didn't start out with the intention to start a Green Belt Movement. The movement grew out of actions that worked to cope with realities at hand. All my blather to make the same point that John Firth already has that Ayittey is talking about building democracy form the bottom up. Geez! ---- :Author: Mark Grimes :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:58:49 PDT BTW, the beaded bracelet Dr. Ayittey is wearing in the photo for the video are called CEDI beads made in Ghana. Obo and Susan Addy have brought back many of those from Ghana in years past, I've got a few dozen in the house here. Hey, someone should invite Dr. Ayittey into this conversation. :: Dr. George Ayittey Distinguished Economist in Residence Tel: (202) 885-3779 Fax: (202) 885-3790 ayittey@american.edu ---- :Author: David Braden :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:40:12 PDT John Powers said: . . . I rather take for granted that the two systems exist and getting rid of either of them is just to big a task to contemplate. and We need a world view. . . . examining premises and a willingness to probe the component values distinguishes a world view from a fixed idea or dogma. I would offer a `Better Map`_. .. _`Better Map`: http://www.aboutus.org/3DN_Better_Maps ---- :Author: Jeff Mowatt :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:13:47 PDT Mark wrote: BTW, the beaded bracelet Dr. Ayittey is wearing in the photo for the video are called CEDI beads made in Ghana CEDI is their unit of currency in Ghana. I wonder why such a choice? ---- :Author: Linda Nowakowski :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:13:55 PDT Done! Dear Dr. Ayittey, There is a group of committed individuals discussing your TED presentation and considering the implications in a situation in Uganda that a number of us are involved in. Someone was so bold as to suggest inviting you. I was so bold as to take them up on the suggestion. You can find our discussion at http://www.ned.com/group/econo-politics/news/0/ I do look forward to seeing you there but will certainly understand if you have other pressing matters. .. line-block :: -- Linda Nowakowski Faculty of Management Science Ubon Ratchathani University Warin Chamrab Ubon Ratchathani 34190 THAILAND ---- :Author: Mark Grimes :Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:25:07 PDT >>CEDI is their unit of currency in Ghana. I wonder why such a choice?<< I'll ask Susan Addy if she knows... I thought it was the main bead-maker guy's name :-/ ---- :Author: Christina Jordan :Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 01:56:39 PDT btw Linda - thank you so very much for the summary of Dr. Ayittey's presentation. The cheetahs and hippos are alive and well in Gulu! That distinction very precisely characterizes my own observations of 2 levels at play in the local leadership. The local district administration in Gulu is largely made up of cheetahs - they are multiparty and committed to changing the old ways that dominate the hippos in the national administration. But hippos will be hippos - they are there and sometimes it seems there's not much you can do about them. Self-aggrandizement and bullying seems to be a common hippo trait. *Perhaps* this is a actually a human symptom of the intense inferiority complex inflicted on African culture by the rest of the world for more than a century. Anyway, thanks too for inviting Dr. Ayittey to join us here. I'm wondering if he believes the hippos have any chance of transforming into cheetahs, and how we might facilitate that. And also what kinds of things should those of us who want to see the cheetahs free to take over hippo territory do to make that happen more often? Or should we simply accept that the hippos will always be there and work with them? (caveat - maybe some of these issues were covered in the presentation - still sorry I haven't been able to view it!) ---- :Author: chris macrae :Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:50:42 PDT I am not sure if I agree with this but it seemed to offer a framework of some value in translating across countries. It comes from the parallel conversation on the video over at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/151 by someone in name George Wonderwheel: The fundamental problem is that people confuse form with function. As Ayittey points out, the form of current modern African governments totally fail to provide any functional democracy. (The USA government is just as corrupt and anti-democratic, but hides it better, but that is for another blog.) The traditional African systems that Ayittey discusses may or may not have been more democratic and the question is how can we tell? Fortunately, we can judge between traditional and modern systems and their degrees of democracy by applying a simple ruler to measure the system for its democratic factors. There are six primary factors in democracy that can be arranged in three pairs or polarities: 1. People as sovereign - 2. Rule of law; 3. Majority rule - 4. Minority rights; 5. Separation of powers - 6. Checks and balances. By asking how any particular system measures up to these six factors we can easily judge the democratic principles at work in the system. Here is one example; a free press is a primary social structure that guarantees minority rights within a majority rule system. If a minority can not put their views forward, then they have no opportunity to persuade the majority and therefore even if there is majority rule, without a free press there is no democracy because there is no protection of this essential minority right. In any country, even the U.S.A., where there are only five or less of these factors, then it is not a complete democracy, and it will be seen that the missing factor shows the hole where fascists and gangsters have inserted themselves like a wedge to corrupt and misguide the democratic principles and undermine the democracy for their own personal ends. Ayittey describes, for example, the council of elders who can remove a chief who is unresponsive to the will of the people. This is the function of factors 5 and 6, separation of powers and checks and balances. These two factors work together and by observing this functioning in traditional systems is one way to determine that the traditional systems are working democracies. If a chief understands that he or she is not soverign and it is the people who are soverign (factor 1), and the chief doesn't get to make up the law but has a rule of law to abide by (factor 2), then the chief is not a monarch but a leader based in democratic principles (of course, as long as the chief also recognizes the other 4 factors as well). Listening to Ayittey's brief descriptions, it is easy to see that the confederacy principle is a basic democratic heritage of Africa and is present as a traditional cultrual base upon which to buld viable democracies that embody the six primary factors. ---- :Author: John Powers :Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 18:04:49 PDT After Linda's great transcription of Ayittey's talk, it occurs to me to mention that `Ethan Zuckerman`_ live blogged the conference. On the side bar he has a Ted Global link. But for some reason it appears to me to yield only a single page of entries. So I went simply to his June 2007 archives. I keep getting so far afield in my comments. And I was very happy for the link to the the the `Better Map`_ I agree that the metaphor of an ecosystem is a better map. But one of my points is that people are able to keep in mind multiple metaphor systems. Indeed something we're sometimes good at doing is figuring out when someone is trying to trick us. Hence my story about my little niece. I enjoyed George Lakoff's "Metaphors We Live By" so I was delighted to seen in the run up to the 2004 presidential elections that Lakoff waded into the political scene with some ideas about framing in a book called "Don't Think of an Elephant." But Frances Moore Lappe wrote a good criticism of it in an essay called `Time for Progressives to Grow Up`_ If I see a problem with "A Better Map" it is that we all exist with multiple maps to use. It would be good to have a single one, I suppose, except that we have to negotiate in a world where people have mapped things out quite differently than that. So it helps to have a map for understanding that too. Among the many great talks at Ted Global, I was very moved by `Chris Abani's`_ In June when I read Ethan's live blogging, he reproduced a poem, "Ode to the Drum" by Yusuf Kumanyaaka which Abani recited at the end of his talk. The final lines of that poem took my breath away. You can read `Ethan's blog`_ post of Abani's talk and see the whole poem there. I haven't found the right word yet for the way I see Ayittey's "traditional African institutions." I tried to make a distinction between "returning" and "rediscovering" but that doesn't quite get at it. What I'm pointing to is the creative acts inherent in whatever we do. That old line from a Faulkner play: "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past." bites into this conundrum I'm trying to express. Watch Chris Abani's video if you can, or read Kumanyaaka's poem at Zuckerman's blog. It seem very relevant to what Ayittey is talking about, or at least the way I'm understanding him. There's an academic paper on Fela Kuti and Yourba story telling I'd like to link to but can't find. LOL a relef I suspect to most of you. Obviously including links means they're entirely optional. And in that vein of optional links I was interested in a blog post by a provocative Ugandan blogger the `27th Comrade`_ today. On the one hand the 27th Comrade might be understood to be precisely contrary to Ayittey's contention that Africa's problems are internal not external. I see the 27th Comrade working with the narrative and trying hard to compose an African story. It may not be along the lines of the story Ayittey would tell, but it does seem a part of the process of the process of claiming the narrative that essential for rediscovering traditional African institutions. .. _`Ethan Zuckerman`: http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/ .. _`Better Map`: http://www.aboutus.org/3DN_Better_Maps .. _`Time for Progressives to Grow Up`: http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/article.php?id=1010 .. _`Chris Abani's`: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/155 .. _`Ethan's blog`: http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2007/06/06/three-voices-listen/ .. _`27th Comrade`: http://dying-communist.blogspot.com/2007/09/forget-history-please.html ---- :Author: David Braden :Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 08:11:20 PDT Haven't gotten through all your links yet John - but I liked this from Lappe: Second, the ecological revolution is infusing our consciousness with an awareness of our interrelatedness far wider than our immediate family. Ecology teaches us that there is no single action, isolated and contained; all actions have ripples – not just ripples up through systems in hierarchical flows, but out through webs of connectedness in what we might think of as lateral flows. Ecology teaches us that the world is co-created through complex networks of relationships, no one of which is dominant. ---- :Author: David Braden :Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 10:29:15 PDT Watched the Chris Abani video - I'm not sure he is taking the idea of story as far as I would. The stories we tell create the world in which we live - and we need a new story - not just about Africans for Africans - but about people for humanity. This new story needs to be based on our `essential unity`_ and be: the story of "How Humans came to Live in Peace and Plenty". It begins . . . There was a time when humans did unspeakable things to one another, and that led to scarcity and privation, that led to more cruelty, in an unending cycle . . . Of course, we do not know the details of the story, but it involves coming to understand and honor the gift of the least among us . . . .. _`essential unity`: http://www.aboutus.org/essential_unity ---- :Author: John Powers :Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 12:33:24 PDT I love the story in Abani's talk about the Pakistani Muslim teacher teaching his Ibo students about the Biafra war. And then how as a young man he wrote a new story. They always say stories have a beginning middle and end. Since there are three time parts to stories it begs comparison to the way time is broken into past-present-future. Part of the power of stories is that time isn't fixed, all time can be invented, past, present and future.So in David's story the past is invented as well as the present and future. When Abani talks about how important stories are for understanding, on one hand it seems he's saying we have to know the past as if it's a fixed thing, the past as still and unmoving--dead. But then he tells his story about his teacher and makes plain that stories are a living way for understanding. Always we find, as living beings, that the present is the time we have the most influence over; the present is where are doing is manifest. But it seems to me our being requires all of time for meaning. That's why I found Abani's talk of stories so powerful. ---- :Author: Linda Nowakowski :Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:27:29 PDT I got the following response from Dr. Ayittey: Linda, I have read through most of the postings and they are very insightful. I have signed in and waiting for my password. In the meantime, please find attached the transcripts of my speech. You did a great job tryng to transcribe it. Will join you guys soon. Best, George Ayittey, Washington, DC **Transcripts of speech by Dr.George Ayittey** ----- at TED Global, Arusha, Tanzania (June 5, 2007) First of all, let me thank Emeka for a, as a matter fact TED Global, for putting this conference together. And this conference is going to rank as the most important in the beginning of the 21st century. Think African governments will put together a conference like this? Think the AU (African Union) will put together a conference like this? Even before they do that, they will ask for foreign aid. I will also like to pay homage and honor to the TED fellows -- June Arunga, James Shikwati, Andrew, and the other TED Fellows. I call them the Cheetah Generation. The Cheetah generation is a new breed of Africans, who brook no nonsense about corruption. They understand what accountability and democracy is. They are not going to wait for government to do things for them. That is the Cheetah generation. And Africa’s salvation rests on the backs on these Cheetahs. In contrast, of course, we have the Hippo generation. The Hippo generation are the ruling elites. They’re stuck in their intellectual patch, complaining about colonialism, and imperialism. They wouldn’t move one foot. If you asked them to reform their economies they are not going to reform it because they benefit from the rotten status quo. Now, there are lots of Africans who are very ANGRY – ANGRY at the condition of Africa. Now, we are talking about a continent which is not poor but is rich in mineral resources -- natural mineral resources. But the mineral wealth has not been utilized to lift its people out of poverty. That’s what makes a lot of Africans very angry. And in a way Africa is more than a tragedy in more ways than one. There is another enduring tragedy and that tragedy is there are so many people, so many governments and so many organizations who want to help a people in Africa they don’t understand. Now, we are not saying don’t help Africa. Helping Africa is noble. But helping Africa has been turned into a theater of the absurd. It is like the blind leading the clueless. There are certain things that we need to recognize. Africa’s begging bowl leaks. Did you know that 40- percent of the wealth created in Africa is not invested here in Africa? It is taken out of Africa. That’s what the World Bank says. Look at Africa’s begging bowl. It leaks -- horribly. There are people who think that we should pour more money – more aid -- into this bowl, which leaks. What are the leakages? Corruption alone costs Africa $148 billion a year. Put that aside. Capital flight out of Africa: $80 billion a year. Put aside. Let’s take food imports. Every year Africa spends $20 billion a year to import food. Just add that up. All these leakages – that’s far more than the $50 billion Tony Blair wants to raise for Africa. Back in the 1960s, Africa not only fed itself but also exported food. Not any more. We know that something has gone fundamentally wrong. You know it, I know it. But let’s not waste our time talking about these mistakes because we will spend all day here. Let’s move on and flip over to the next chapter. That what this conference is all about: The Next Chapter. The next chapter begins with first of all by asking ourselves this fundamental question: Whom do we want to help in Africa? There is the people, and then there is the government or the leaders. Now the previous speaker before me, Idris Mohamed, indicated that we’ve had abysmal leadership in Africa. That characterization, in my view, is even more charitable. I belong to an internet discussion forum -- an African internet discussion forum – and I asked them that since 1960, we have had exactly 204 African heads of state – since 1960. And I asked them to name me just 20 good leaders – just 20 good leaders. Maybe you may want to take this leadership challenge yourself. I asked them to name me just 20. Everybody mentioned Nelson Mandela, of course. Kwame Nkrumah, Nyerere, Kenyatta. Somebody mentioned Idi Amin. I let that pass. Fact is, they could not go beyond 15. Even if they had been able to name me 20 what does that tell you? 20 out of 204 means that the majority – the vast majority of the African leaders failed their people. If you look at them, the slate of post-colonial leaders is an assortment of military fufu-heads, Swiss bank socialists, crocodile liberators, vampire elites, quack revolutionaries. Now, this leadership is a far cry from the traditional leaders Africans have known for centuries. The second false premise we make is that, sometimes we think there is in Africa something called a “government” that cares about its people, serves the interest of the people and represents the people. There is one particular quote. A Lesotho chief once said that: Here in Lesotho we have two problems: Rats and the governments. What you and I understand as “governments’ doesn’t exist in many African countries. In fact what we call our governments are “vampire states.” Vampires states because they suck the economic vitality out of their people. Government is the problem in Africa. A vampire state is government which has been hijacked by a phalanx of bandits and crooks who use the instruments of state power to enrich themselves, their cronies, and tribesmen and exclude everyone else. The richest people in Africa are heads of state and ministers. And quite often the chief bandit is the head of state himself. Where did they get their money? By creating wealth? No, by raking it off the backs of their suffering people. That is not wealth creation; that’s wealth redistribution. The third fundamental issue that we have to recognize is that if we want to help the African people we must know where the African people are. Take any African economy. An African economy can be broken up into three sectors: There is the modern sector, there is the informal sector and the traditional sector. The modern sector is the abode of the elites. It is the seat of government. In many African countries, the modern sector is lost; it is dysfunctional. It is a meretricious fandango of imported systems which the elites themselves don’t understand. That is the source of many of Africa’s problems -- where the struggles for political power emanate, and then spill over onto the informal and traditional sectors, claiming innocent lives. Now, the modern sector, of course, is where a lot of the development aid and resources went into. More than 80 percent of Ivory Coast development went into the modern sector The other sectors, the informal and traditional sectors, are where you can find the majority of the African people. The real people in Africa – that’s where you find them. Obviously it makes common sense that if you want to help the people you go where the people are. But that’s not what we did. As a matter of fact, we neglected the informal and traditional sectors. The traditional sector is where Africa produces its agriculture, which is one of the reasons why Africa can’t feed itself. And that’s why it must import food. Alright . . . You cannot develop Africa by ignoring the informal and traditional sectors And you can’t develop the informal and traditional without an operational understanding of how these two sectors work. These two sectors, let me describe to you, have their own indigenous institutions. The first one is the political system. Traditionally, Africans hate government; they hate tyranny. If you look into their traditional systems, Africans organize their states in two types. The first one belongs to those ethnic societies who believe the state was necessarily tyrannous. So they didn’t want to have anything to do with any centralized authority. These societies are the Ibo, the Somali and the Kikuyu, for example. They have no chiefs. The other ethnic groups which did have chiefs, made sure that they surrounded the chiefs with councils upon councils upon councils to prevent them from abusing their power. In the Ashanti Kingdom, for example, the chief cannot make any decision without the concurrence of the council of elders. Without the council, the chief can’t pass any law. And if the chief doesn’t govern according to the will of the people he would be removed. If not, the people will abandon the chief. Go somewhere else and set up a new settlement. And even if you look into ancient African empires they were all organized around one particular principle: The confederacy principle, which is characterized by a great deal of devolution of authority, decentralization of power. Now, this is what I have described to you -- this is part of Africa’s indigenous political heritage. Now compare that to the modern systems the ruling elites established upon Africa, on Africans. – a total far cry [from the traditional system]. In the economic system, in traditional Africa, the means of production are privately owned -- owned by extended families. See, in the west, the basic economic and social unit is the individual. The American would say: I am because I am and I can damn well do anything I want anytime. The accent is on the “I.” In Africa, the Africans say I am because we are. The “we” connotes community-- the extended family system. The extended family system pulls its resources together; they own farms; they decide what to do; what to produce. They don’t take any orders from their chiefs. They decide what to do. And when they produce their crops, they sell the surplus on markets places. When they make a profit, it is theirs to keep; not for the chief to sequestrate from them. In a nutshell, what we had in traditional Africa was a free market system. There were markets in Africa before the colonialists stepped foot on the continent. Timbuktu was one great big market town. Kano, Salaga, – they were all there. Even if you go to West Africa, you will notice that market activity in West Africa, has always been dominated by women. So it is quite appropriate that this section of the conference is called the Marketplace. The market is not alien to Africa. What Africans practiced was a different form of capitalism. But then after independence, all of a sudden, markets, capitalism became a Western institution and the leaders said Africans were ready for socialism. Nonsense. And even then what kind of socialism did they practice? The socialism that they practiced was a peculiar form of “Swiss bank socialism” which allowed the head of state and his ministers to rape and plunder Africa’s treasury for deposit in Switzerland. That is not the kind of system Africans have known for centuries. What do we do now? Go back to our Africa’s indigenous institutions. This is where we charge the Cheetahs to go into the informal sectors and traditional sectors. That’s where your find the African people I would like to show you a quick little video about the informal sector, about the boat-building I myself am trying to mobilize Africans in the diaspora to invest in. Could you please show that? [Video runs] Here is a Ghanaian entrepreneur, using his own capital without any assistance from the government and is building bigger boats. Bigger boats means that more fish can be caught and landed. It means that he would be able to employ more Ghanaians. And it also means that they will be to generate wealth. And then have, what economists call, “external effects” on the local economy. All that the elites need to do is to move these operations into something that is enclosed so that the operations can be made more efficient. Now, it is not just this informal sector, there is also traditional medicine. 80 percent of Africans still rely on traditional medicine. The modern health care sector has totally collapsed. Now, this is an area, I mean there is a trover – trover treasure of wealth in traditional medicine area. This is where we need to mobilize Africans in the diaspora especially to invest in this. We also need to mobilize Africans in the diaspora, not only to go into the traditional sectors but also into agriculture and also to instigate change from within. We were able mobilize Ghanaians in the diaspora to instigate change in Ghana and bring about democracy in Ghana and I know that with the Cheetahs we can take Africa back – one village at a time. Thank you. ---- :Author: John Firth :Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 04:25:49 PDT Linda, thank you for taking the initiative on this and for posting the transcript of George's speech here. We are all grateful to you for that. I see that George has now logged on as a member and I would also like to take this opportunity to jump the queue and ask a couple a questions. George, you refer to *Vampire States* and suggest that the vampire governments can be removed and the traditions of a more democratic Africa can be restored one village at a time. I like the notion of creating a 'social bypass' that rebuilds power from the bottom up but I wonder if you believe that this kind of change - which may challenge not just the elites but also Western interests - can be achieved peacefully ? I also wonder if you could expand on your references to the 'informal economy' as we may have misread your meaning and that led to some debate at the beginning of this discussion. ---- :Author: Jim Carroll :Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 06:17:59 PDT Dr. Ayittey, it's wonderful to have you here. When you say, "All that the elites need to do is to move these operations into something that is enclosed so that the operations can be made more efficient." Are you talking about putting a roof over their head? I can imagine that scaling the boat building business might need to move from the informal market to the modern market, and that would give them more economic resources to build their own roof (metaphorically or not.) So that leads to another question, How big can a business grow, and still avoid the modern economy? Thank you. In community, -Jim ---- :Author: John Powers :Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:30:57 PDT Somewhere along the line in my bloviating in this thread the thought came: "What if Dr. Ayittey were to read this?" I reassured myself that was unlikely, so when I that read Linda had written George Ayittey, my stomach sunk. When I began talking about African issues with friends, over and over their response was that I should contact Black organizations. Also, usually they say I should contact Oprah. In a segregated society like the USA one great benefit about the Internet is that white Americans can engage with black Americans more regularly. I do and sometimes those conversations are very painful. Racism in America is broken bones in the skeleton of our structure. The process of realigning bones is never painless. In a different, but similar way, when Americans an others begin to think about Africa and engage with Africans, the broken bones in our feeble and often stereotypical thinking have to be reset. My stomach sunk. Nevertheless, I invite Dr. Ayittey's participation here. What do they say? No pain no gain. I understand the academic schedule and how intense it is. At least Linda Nowakowski has a good handle on that here. Even if you don't have time for this thread, I would encourage you to look around the discussions here. Perhaps one way to is to open the profile of a young man from northern Uganda named `Munnu Morrish`_ and skim over his comments in discussion threads. What is most important for us is constructive engagement with the people we collaborate with. I've corresponded for years with a Ugandan friend who started a community based organization in the Iganga region of Uganda. All along I've told him to be skeptical of anything I say, and for the most part I think we've got an understanding about that. The conversation your Ted talk has provoked, not just here but all over, is so important. One of the great strengths of your Internalist versus Externalist diagnosis is that your Internalist position encourages responsibility. I don't imagine the meaning of "responsibility"as synonymous with "fault" but rather meaning the ability to respond. When we, as many here have, engage with African people to collaborate on projects in Africa acting responsibly becomes particular; real people matter. Understanding your ideas has practical significance; a good reason they've engaged so many. .. _`Munnu Morrish`: http://www.ned.com/user/u413552474/ ---- :Author: John Firth :Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:03:42 PDT :Modified: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:05:16 PDT Deleted entry. ---- :Author: John Firth :Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 04:19:19 PDT :Modified: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 04:20:38 PDT I have been doing some more reading on the notion of the 'informal economy'(as it is used by economists) and the broad brush definition normally refers to the 'informal' as that part of the economy which is unregulated and untaxed and - whilst the activities may be illegal - they are not criminal. If, for example, I make a net to start fishing or use my bike to make money running messages for cash (or goods) then I am part of the informal economy. On a larger scale, I could run a taxi business or be a builder in a township or a slum settlement (or a refugee camp) but - and this seems to be missed in some accounts - I could also be the owner of a sweat shop. The description seems to be used to demonstrate an intrinsic entrepreneurial spirit (usually in the developing world) and - although it wouldn't be put so bluntly - the term has also been used to bolster arguments that 'free markets' are part of the natural order. On the other and more positive hand, I guess the term 'informal markets' can also be used to refer to a more human formal of social relations and exchange and maybe this is what George Ayittey is referring to when he says that Africans once practised a different form of 'capitalism'. ---- :Author: George B.N. Ayittey, Ph.D. :Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:29:38 PDT John Firth said: Linda, thank you for taking the initiative on this and for posting the transcript of George's speech here. We are all grateful to you for that. I see that George has now logged on as a member and I would also like to take this opportunity to jump the queue and ask a couple a questions. George, you refer to *Vampire States* and suggest that the vampire governments can be removed and the traditions of a more democratic Africa can be restored one village at a time. I like the notion of creating a 'social bypass' that rebuilds power from the bottom up but I wonder if you believe that this kind of change - which may challenge not just the elites but also Western interests - can be achieved peacefully ? I also wonder if you could expand on your references to the 'informal economy' as we may have misread your meaning and that led to some debate at the beginning of this discussion. John, Thank you for your questions and I apologize for the delay in responding. I am still learning how to navigate the system. One of the things I like to avoid in my writings are such terms as "Western interests." I don't even use the term "capitalism" because it is an emotive word and grossly misunderstood. I think you will agree with me that an African government must serve first and foremost the interests of its African citizens and must be held accountable by them. The problem with African governments is that they serve not Western interests nor Eastern interests but the interests of the ruling vampire elites. The West often deludes itself into thinking that it has "friends" or "allies" in Africa. Museveni of Uganda, Zenawi of Ethiopia Mugabe of Zimbabwe and the others serve no other interests except their own. I am scathing in my criticisms of these leaders because I use, not Western or Eastern standards to judge them but Africa's own indigenous standards. Traditional African governments and chiefs are held accountable and can be removed if they fail to perform or do not govern according to the will of the people. Even kings can be removed. Back in the 18th century, they can be removed by "regicide." African kings had no political role. Their role was to seek a balance of cosmological forces: the sky, the world and the earth. Each was represented by a god and the king's role was to mediate between these gods. If the sky god was "angry" there would be no rain, harvests would be poor, and the king was blamed for that. Off went his head. Mugabe never had it so easy. But we can effect change peacefully. We did that in Ghana when we tossed out the brutally repressive regime of Jerry Rawlings and instituted democracy. More on this later but we want to repeat this feat in Zimbabwe and other African countries as well. George Ayittey, Washington, DC ---- :Author: John Firth :Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 03:02:06 PDT Thank you George and welcome. I'm sure everyone will be grateful that you've taken the time to both reply and to come to terms with all the 'bells and whistles' around here. I take your point about use of the term 'capitalism' and agree that the term carries so much historical baggage that it becomes loaded with misleading resonances when used in the wrong context. I think that's why I used inverted commas when I suggested (or speculated) that you may have been talking about a different kind of 'capitalism' in the context of informal and traditional markets in African economies. Possibly an economy based on traditional collective social values ? Please correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption because it would be interesting if you could expand on this and, particularly, if you could explain how you see an African market economy as being different from 'Western market economies' ? And finally - Mugabe! Of the old African leaders at least Nyere moved to remove Idi Amin. It is sometimes difficult to understand why in more recent times other African nations have effectively sustained Mugabe through their inaction. Still too many *hippos* ? :) ---- :Author: George B.N. Ayittey, Ph.D. :Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 03:04:51 PDT Jim Carroll said: Dr. Ayittey, it's wonderful to have you here. When you say, "All that the elites need to do is to move these operations into something that is enclosed so that the operations can be made more efficient." Are you talking about putting a roof over their head? I can imagine that scaling the boat building business might need to move from the informal market to the modern market, and that would give them more economic resources to build their own roof (metaphorically or not.) So that leads to another question, How big can a business grow, and still avoid the modern economy? Thank you. In community, -Jim Jim, The formal economy is where the production of goods and services is more formally organized. Salaries are paid, receipts are given upon purchase of commodities, taxes are paid, and where one talks about life insurance, pensions, where legal issues, property rights are clearly defined, etc. In the informal sector, things are not so clearly demarcated. Contracts are by word of mouth and are not legally enforceable. Wages are paid but no taxes. [I like that!] I hope you get the idea. I think of the informal sector -- which comprises of 85 percent of Ghana's economy and at least 90 percent of Nigeria's economy -- as a "transitional sector." Transitional from the traditional/rural to the modern/formal sector. Now, the boat building operations I talked about in the video is about an entrepreneur who has the skills and a little capital. He found some spot near the beach and set up his operations. He has no title to the land. He employs about 20 people. I visited the place and it is filthy. It takes them 4 months to build one big boat, which sells for $45,000. When it rains, work stops. Obviously, the operations are not efficient. What I have done is to reach a partnership agreement with the boat builder. I went to see the Chief of the area and he has agreed to give us "tribal" land for free. We will build a hangar-type of structure and move the operations indoors, supply electricity and some basic tools. This way, they will be able to produce one big boat a month. My calculations indicate that one big boat can haul in 700 pounds of fish on one trip. In a year, the boat can bring in $90,000 in gross revenue. I am mobilizing Ghanaians in the diaspora to put up $1,000 each for this venture. So far, 15 people have paid up. I need 100. With $100,000, we will purchase 2 boats and give them to two crews of 8 fishermen. Each crew will be asked to work and pay back $150,000, after which the boat becomes theirs. Since the prospect of ownership is a powerful INCENTIVE, they will work very hard to finish paying it off quickly. In two years, we will have $300,000 from the two boats and then buy 6 boats, which in 2 years will bring $900,000. A reverse Ponzi scheme, if you may. Notice that we have not done anything radically new; just re-organize the EXISTING operations. It will be called CHEETAH FISHING, which will become part of Cheetah Entities.Hence, my mantra: Go back and IMPROVE upon the existing ways of doing things. Africa's ruling elites never did this. When I was in Ghana in August, I read in the papers that the Government of Ghana has signed an agreement with the Dutch and Philippine governments to have bigger boats build in the Philippines and shipped to Ghana. I hope you now understand the expression "the blind leading the clueless." George Ayittey, Washington, DC ---- :Author: John Firth :Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 03:54:15 PDT George, great *kudos* to you for getting involved in the Cheetah Fishing project. I can't recall too many economists from my old school (the LSE) actually rolling up their sleeves and getting involved in the development of 'grass roots' businesses. But, do you have any thoughts about why the African diaspora has been slow to pick up on this project ? ---- :Author: George B.N. Ayittey, Ph.D. :Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 03:55:48 PDT John Powers said: Somewhere along the line in my bloviating in this thread the thought came: "What if Dr. Ayittey were to read this?" I reassured myself that was unlikely, so when I that read Linda had written George Ayittey, my stomach sunk. When I began talking about African issues with friends, over and over their response was that I should contact Black organizations. Also, usually they say I should contact Oprah. In a segregated society like the USA one great benefit about the Internet is that white Americans can engage with black Americans more regularly. I do and sometimes those conversations are very painful. Racism in America is broken bones in the skeleton of our structure. The process of realigning bones is never painless. In a different, but similar way, when Americans an others begin to think about Africa and engage with Africans, the broken bones in our feeble and often stereotypical thinking have to be reset. My stomach sunk. Nevertheless, I invite Dr. Ayittey's participation here. What do they say? No pain no gain. I understand the academic schedule and how intense it is. At least Linda Nowakowski has a good handle on that here. Even if you don't have time for this thread, I would encourage you to look around the discussions here. Perhaps one way to is to open the profile of a young man from northern Uganda named `Munnu Morrish`_ and skim over his comments in discussion threads. What is most important for us is constructive engagement with the people we collaborate with. I've corresponded for years with a Ugandan friend who started a community based organization in the Iganga region of Uganda. All along I've told him to be skeptical of anything I say, and for the most part I think we've got an understanding about that. The conversation your Ted talk has provoked, not just here but all over, is so important. One of the great strengths of your Internalist versus Externalist diagnosis is that your Internalist position encourages responsibility. I don't imagine the meaning of "responsibility"as synonymous with "fault" but rather meaning the ability to respond. When we, as many here have, engage with African people to collaborate on projects in Africa acting responsibly becomes particular; real people matter. Understanding your ideas has practical significance; a good reason they've engaged so many. .. _`Munnu Morrish`: http://www.ned.com/user/u413552474/ John, I understand where you are coming from but skeletons of racism have very little to do with most of Africa's problems. The white man's contrition over the iniquities of the slave trade and colonialism may be long overdue but that have little to do with Africa's current crises. Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Zaire, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast and Sudan all blew up because of the adamant refusal of their respective military GENERALS to relinquish or share political power. I call them military coconut-heads or fufu-heads. The implosion of these countries had nothing to do with racism, the slave trade or colonialism. It may be politically correct to say that and Oprah and Rev. Jesse Jackson may be pleased to hear it but that is not the truth. Black Americans mean well for Africa but you should know that there are 4 fundamental differences between black Americans and black Africans. 1. Throughout their history, lives and experiences, black Americans have always seen their exploiters and oppressors to be white. In Africa, we have seen BOTH black and white oppressors and exploiters. Black Americans have never lived under black despots like Idi Amin and therefore cannot relate to black tyranny. They did help in the dismantling of apartheid, which they rightly saw as white oppression of blacks. But they couldn't see the equally heinous tribal apartheid system in Rwanda, Burundi, Arab apartheid in Sudan, Mauritania or the other de facto regimes elsewhere in Africa. 2. In America, the GOVERNMENT enacted civil rights laws, affirmative action, and other social programs. As such, black Americans tend to see the government as the "solution" to their problems. In Africa, we see our governments as the "PROBLEM." 3. Whereas black Americans tend to see racism as their number one problem, we black Africans tend to see TRIBALISM as the scourge. Here again, tribalism is something black Americans cannot relate to. 4. Black Africans still cling to their traditional values and heritage. Having been painfully uprooted and brought to America, I think I would be correct in saying that many black Americans are still not sure if they should embrace Western values. Their rejection of Western values is still strong, evidenced by the adoption of Islamic names. The irony of this is that the Arabs have never been friends of Africans. In fact, strictly from the African point of view, the Arabs in Africa were no different from the Europeans. BOTH were enslavers, colonizers, exploiters and oppressors. While the Europeans were running the West African slave trade, the Arabs were running the East African slave trade. But you will never hear anything about the latter, do you? And should black Africans forget that aspect of their history? You see, if Europe had not colonized Africa, the Arabs would have. And for beating them to the punch, the Arabs never forgave the West. But all this is history. Today, the new "colonizer" comes from the East. China does it with a bow in what I call "chopsticks mercantilism." George Ayittey, Washington, DC ---- :Author: Jim Carroll :Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 05:48:58 PDT Thank you George, *So* nice to have you here. The fishing business sounds very lucrative for the Ghanaians, are those numbers in US dollars? (please excuse my inexperience.) ---- :Author: John Powers :Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:25:40 PDT Thank you so much Dr. Ayittey for joining the conversation. One of the refreshing aspects of the Internet is "nobody knows you're a dog." So sometimes conversations can go on without race, gender, weight, age or nationality taking center stage. When I've talked to friends "about Africa" generally I've been talking about things like increasing profits of poultry production through reducing chicken morbidity and mortality. So the very common response to such talk that I should contact Black organizations rather takes an egg-beater to my brain. Another thing that turns my head around when I talk with friends is the impression that because I've taken an interest in a few things going on in one district of Uganda that I'm some expert on Africa. The problem of conversations turning from ordinary to meta-dialogs would be kind of funny except for the kinds of passions these meta-dialogs so often release. Having read your excellent book, "Africa in Chaos" the points you so succinctly make here about Black Americans in re Africa are familiar. My stomach sunk with the idea of you reading what I had written not because I imagined you'd accuse me of racism, but rather you'd slam me against the wall for suggesting that we not take too romantic a view of traditional African institutions, and that the need for large infrastructure investments can't be ignored. It's a great challenge to find ways that people of goodwill to collaborate to create something good. I've linked to you and to Emeka Okafor's Timbuktu Chronicles much more often than to One or Oprah. You are very adept in saying a lot in a few words. Somewhere I heard you say in response to question about advice for Africans you said: Produce something, even if it's only charcoal. I've borrowed your "Produce something" many times, now I'll be more careful about attribution. I'm glad about your fish boat plan and interested that you're mobilizing fellow Ghanaians in the diaspora for investment capital. Americans can help build in Africa from an Internalist perspective by collaborating with American Africans. A Web site some here might enjoy is `AfricanLoft`_ an online network stretching across many borders. .. _`AfricanLoft`: http://community.africanloft.com/ ---- :Author: Rory Turner :Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:46:24 PDT I'm very appreciative of this dialogue, and of the depth and and precision of Dr. Ayittey's analysis of these critical issues. We are so grateful for your participation! I offer a question: The question concerns the issue of trust as it pertains to African business. I spent about a year in Nigeria in the early 1990's, and along with research on traditional expressive culture, I became very interested in both the dynamism of the informal economy, and the tremendous challenges faced by some pretty remarkable entrepreneurs. One huge problem my friends faced was in being able to trust others in a context where the legal system was very inefficient and contracts were hard to enforce. This led to some business practices and decisions that were not so helpful. Without the solid "trust infrastructure" of a developed economy (though some would question how solid it is and for whom), people made do, and were able to create some pretty workable relationships and effective businesses. Still, it strikes me that this is a major challenge in the transition Dr. Ayittey describes from the informal to the modern economy. Its here that some of the tools of reputation systems might have some value. I imagine certifications or other external validations that could serve to create an extended business community where transactions could be undertaken with a higher degree of confidence than they can be done now. What would such a system look like in the realities of Africa's informal sector? Do churches and other institutions serve this function? This is one thought, but I would love to hear what Dr. Ayittey and the rest of us think of the trust issue. Is trust a problem in the growth of "what works" in the African informal sector, and if so, what can be done to change this? ---- :Author: George B.N. Ayittey, Ph.D. :Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:48:37 PDT John Firth said: Thank you George and welcome. I'm sure everyone will be grateful that you've taken the time to both reply and to come to terms with all the 'bells and whistles' around here. I take your point about use of the term 'capitalism' and agree that the term carries so much historical baggage that it becomes loaded with misleading resonances when used in the wrong context. I think that's why I used inverted commas when I suggested (or speculated) that you may have been talking about a different kind of 'capitalism' in the context of informal and traditional markets in African economies. Possibly an economy based on traditional collective social values ? Please correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption because it would be interesting if you could expand on this and, particularly, if you could explain how you see an African market economy as being different from 'Western market economies' ? And finally - Mugabe! Of the old African leaders at least Nyere moved to remove Idi Amin. It is sometimes difficult to understand why in more recent times other African nations have effectively sustained Mugabe through their inaction. Still too many *hippos* ? :) John, The last question first. Several reasons why African leaders won't condemn Mugabe: 1. The African Union (AU) is a den of hippos (autocrats). They protect one another. 2. Many of these leaders are doing the same thing in their own countries. So who are they to criticize Mugabe? 3. Southern African leaders -- especially South Africa -- are "indebted" to Mugabe who provided them with sanctuary when they were fighting their wars of liberation. 4. Mugabe is adept at OVER-playing the "colonialism-imperialism-racism" card. That still resonates with some of the Southern African leaders, who face similar land distribution problems -- Namibia, South Africa, Mozambique and even Kenya. 5. That region of Africa has only had limited (about 20 years) of post colonial experience. Therefore, it has not had sufficient time to exorcise the colonialist bogeyman. In West Africa, for example, the rantings of Mugabe would draw a yawn. Now to your primary question about collective social values. There is much mythology about traditional Africa and it originates from the inability to distinguish between the existence of an institution and DIFFERENT FORMS of the same institution. Money is one example. It is a medium of exchange. Before the Europeans arrived in Africa, the natives were using cowrie shells, gold dust, etc. as money. The Europeans introduced paper currency -- a different form of money. If you went to Africa in 1450 and were looking for paper currency you wouldn't find it. But that did not mean Africans were not using money or had no conception of money. Nor would that mean the Europeans "invented" money. The market is another example. Economists define a market as any set-up that brings buyers and sellers into close contact. Africans had their open air village markets. There were even market towns such as Timbuktu. Markets are such ancient institutions in Africa. The Europeans arrived and built super-markets -- different forms of existing institutions. Obviously, if you went to an African village in 1450 and were looking for a SUPER-MARKET, you wouldn't find one. But that wouldn't mean Africans had no idea what a market was. Nor is a market a "Western institution." The institution of marriage is yet another example. The way Americans marry is different from the way Africans marry. If you went to an African village looking for a church wedding, you wouldn't find one. But that doesn't mean Africans don't marry. Yet another example is the institution of democracy. You can take democratic decisions in two ways: 1. By majority vote. This is fast, transparent and objective. Count the yeah votes against the nay votes. The downside is, it IGNORES minority position. Unless safeguards are in place, you can have the "tyranny of the majority." 2. By consensus. The advantage here is that it takes all minority positions into account. So once a consensus has been reached, you can be sure that ALL will go along with it. The WTO and the Nobel Committee take their decisions by consensus. The downside is it takes an awfully long time to reach a consensus, the larger the group becomes. Decision-making in traditional Africa at the village has always been by consensus under Africa's chiefs. Obviously, if went to an African village looking for a box with "ballot" written on it, you won't find it. But that does not mean decision making is by autocracy. Failure to make these distinctions, not just by Westerners but African leaders as well, led to much misconception and mythology the more so in the economic arena. [As an aside, I often cringe when I hear the Bush administration seeking to "export" democracy. Which form? One reason why Afghanistan is relatively peaceful than Iraq is because, to map out a new political dispensation, a LOYA JIRGA -- an ancient tribal conclave which reached its decisions by consensus -- was convened in Germany. Please search for the term "loya jirga." The loya jirga chose delegates to write the constitution, set the date for elections, etc. No such "loya jirga" was convened for Iraq.] To continue, there is much mythology about Africa's indigenous economic institutions. In the West, the basic economic and social unit is the INDIVIDUAL. In Africa, it is the EXTENDED FAMILY. The American would say "I am because I am." In Africa, the peasant would say "I am because WE are." The "WE" connotes the extended family. The means of production in traditional Africa are owned by the extended family. Land is family owned or lineage-controlled. When the first European asked an African: "Who does this land belong to?" the African replied: "It belongs to ALL OF US." The European misinterpreted that to mean the "entire village or tribe" when the African meant his extended family. Thus an innocent misinterpretation morphed into he MYTH of "communal ownership" of land. Note, the extended family owns the land, not the chief or the tribal government. They may own "tribal lands," that have been acquired by right of first occupation or by conquest. But those are different from family-owned land. Centuries ago when there was plenty of land in Africa, ownership was established by right of first occupation or settlement. Back then, families traveled together to settle and thus became the first owners of the land. What they did with the land was their own business. What type of crop they planted was their own decision to make. You could say it was their "collective" decision to make but the term "collective" has some ugly connotations. It implies decision making by an entire village, which was not the case. Each extended family in Africa has a HEAD, who makes those decisions. The important point to note is that the extended family is a PRIVATE ENTITY, completely separate from the chief or the tribal government. Thus land in traditional Africa has always been PRIVATELY-OWNED -- by the extended family -- as are the other means of production. Obviously, if you do not understand the traditional economic system, ownership of the means of production, etc. you CANNOT develop traditional Africa, which was exactly the case with most of Africa's post colonial leaders. Nkrumah, Nyerere, and Kaunda, for example, misread the native African ethos of communalism (not the same as communism)and the myth of "communal ownership" as signs that Africa was ready for socialism or communism -- that is, state ownership of the means of production. They were DEAD wrong. George Ayittey, Washington, DC ---- :Author: George B.N. Ayittey, Ph.D. :Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:53:31 PDT Jim Carroll said: Thank you George, *So* nice to have you here. The fishing business sounds very lucrative for the Ghanaians, are those numbers in US dollars? (please excuse my inexperience.) Jim, The numbers are in dollars. The big boat costs $45,000 can generate $90,000 in revenue in a year. George Ayittey, Washington, DC ---- :Author: George B.N. Ayittey, Ph.D. :Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:09:39 PDT John Firth said: George, great *kudos* to you for getting involved in the Cheetah Fishing project. I can't recall too many economists from my old school (the LSE) actually rolling up their sleeves and getting involved in the development of 'grass roots' businesses. But, do you have any thoughts about why the African diaspora has been slow to pick up on this project ? John, None of the economists from LSE would get their hands dirty. It is an elite taboo in much of British colonial Africa and also Francophone Africa. The snobbish elite shunned the informal and traditional sector, preferring jobs in air-conditioned plush government offices in the cities. Eventually, they turned the government sector into an arena for SELF-ENRICHMENT. The richest persons in Africa are heads of state and ministers. So every educated African, including those in these diaspora, who wants to be rich, heads straight into government. That is where fierce competition for government posts occurs. And once a post is secured, one would never let go. Not even bulldozers can dislodge presidents and ministers. I want to change all that. I regularly enjoin young African Cheetahs to take the "Ayittey Vow" -- that is, seek their wealth in the PRIVATE sector -- preferably in the informal and traditional sectors. That's where wealth is created. Government does not create wealth. Africa will write a better economic report if the elites were to seek their wealth in the private sector, not in the government. And it will be safer for them too because, come a change of government, nobody will haul them before a commission of enquiry to probe their assets. George Ayittey, Washington, DC ---- :Author: Linda Nowakowski :Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:29:16 PDT Dr. Ayittey, Thank you ever so much for joining this discussion. I have been sitting back and lurking and thinking and twisting and turning.... I came to this discussion by way of a project that will be my PhD thesis in Buddhist Economics. We are looking to see how to modify a sufficiency economy model presented by the King of Thailand and promoted by the UNDP to be helpful in the resettlement and recovery from the war in northern Uganda. The original wording on this was as a resettlement village for child-headed households with a school and other supports. The Catholic Church in northern Uganda has apparently (and surprising to me) been going into the IDP camps encouraging the people to revive the old clan ties and responsibilities. This certainly does not mean that