This article, "Malawi Versus the World Bank," is about the impact a group of economic organizations called the "Washington Consensus" has on rural families living in the small southern African nation of Malawi. The Washington Consensus associated economists and policymakers with creating a situation in Malawi that forced rural farmers there to trade a day's labor, for a day's food. They also forced these farmers to sell timber and roofing for cash so they could purchase food, beg for food, or unfortunately go hungry. How is it that the World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) economists would mandate a policy that causes so much human suffering? Malawi is one of the poorest nations in the world, with a populations of approximately thirteen million people. It is hard to believe that a nation that already suffers is forced to basically go hungry.
With Malawi being one of the poorest nations in the world, they undergo a period of time in which their main crop, maize, is greatly diminished which makes the people living there have to cope with not much food. Without the fertilizers their crops cannot grow which leads to malnutrition and only about 2 meals per day. The hunger crisis's first step was to skip meals. How does the World Bank and IMF in Malawi cause all this human suffering is what the current president asks.
This article to me wasn't as interesting as previous articles we had to read mainly because of what the topic was about. The topic about a group called the "Washington Consensus" where they force rural farmers over in Malawi to trade their days worth of labor for a day's worth of food, and tear up their homes in order to get a profit out of the parts from their home. I learned a little about what Malawi is about but reading articles like these I feel that it doesn't really benefit me at all to know these facts except that i learned what is going on over in Malawi.
This was not one if the most articles to read. However, I did learn some information that I never knew before. Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world and their main crop is corn. There is a period of time where they experience corn diminishing. This causes so many problems to the population. People become malnourished and go hungry. The life expectancy only reaches to 37 years of age. They have to go down to two meals a day and breakfast is not on the menu. Without the nitrogen rich fertilizer, this crop cannot grow. It was kind of a depressing article. These people rely solely on agriculture to live day to day. It is good to be aware of other countries around the world and hear about situations that are not common where you live.
It seems crazy that a program/policy would be put into place that would cause so much damage to a population. Something as easy to get in the U.S. as fertilizer is taken for granted when people rely so heavily on it to survive. Although the structural adjustment policy may have been needed, however to take away from the lives of so much of the population is inhumane and makes no sense. I feel that if it were a more industrialized country, it would have been easier, however, in a country based mainly on agriculture, it is irrational and outright dumb to eliminate something that is so crucial. The government overruling the subsidies was the best thing they could have done, and the resulting surplus of maize after this is proof.
The first question I have about this article is why organizations based in Washington D.C. are making all the decisions for a tiny nation that is completely dissimilar to the U.S. socially, politically, economically, etc. It seems to me that they are basing their decisions off of what they assume the citizens of Malawi need rather than actually going out and learning from the indigenous people. While I understand that desperate times call for desperate measures, there is no excuse for making people mix animal feed into their food just to get through the day. Also, the fact that life expectancy in Malawi is a staggeringly low 37 years, less than half the expected lifetime of a U.S. citizen, is a clear indication that Malawi is struggling despite the Washington Consensus and their misguided efforts. It is clear a complete overhaul is needed to restore Malawi and the health of its citizens, but this does not mean we must change everything about Malawi culture. If agriculture is as important to their culture as I think, there seems to be no reason to change that to me. People need food and someone needs to grow it.
When the people of Malawi were put on restrictions for the amount of fertilizer they could use, may were forced to take drastic measures to provide food for their families. Some people had to build roads and were doing hard labor for a few days in exchange they would receive a 50kg bag of fertilizer. people were even selling parts of their home like the roof to provide enough maize for their families. Food shortages effect the next crop because people will have to eat the foods while they are small or still green to keep themselves from starving during the interim. when the washington consensus took over they were soon living in a surplus of maize.
I find it horrendous that the people of Malawi have to give up so much in order to just feed their families. Basic feeding of poverty should always be a main concern for any country. The IMF and the World Bank are not allowing the Malawi government to receive a loan until they stop giving out subsidies, which they know are the only reason people are able to grow just enough food to feed themselves. The Malawi government knows that their people are growing White Corn to just get by and then they cannot even store up enough to last when they run out until the next harvest. Then the poor farmers have to find different means of making money to buy food in that time frame. The IMF and W.B. should be focused on providing economic relief instead of giving a loan in which they know how poor Malawi is, they can't pay it back.
I learned so much from this article. I had never known how things worked when the World Bank helped a country. I am shocked that they do not see how by not allowing fertilizer subsidies they are hurting the Malawi people. I think the subsidies should be allowed and they still get assistance. Western business methods do not work in unindustrialized countries.
I really fail to understand why the World Bank refuses to allow fertilizer subsidies in order to allow the Malawi people to benefit. When you remove the main crop of a people, whether directly or indirectly, it is only right that you take responsibility for that people and aid them. I think Mandy said it perfectly - Western business methods can't be expected to function in unindustrialized countries, and we have no right to expect them too. Further, we need to take a good hard look at what methods would work in countries like Malawi.
Why does the World Bank force Malawi society to industrialize instead of giving them what they need to survive in line with their cultural standards? It's terrible that people who are in need are being forced to industrialize and adapt their culture to a foreign standard in order to survive, and people are not willing to help other people without any benefit for themselves. As well, the WORLD bank should have a more cross-cultural understanding of the WORLD and what people need to live, not just how industry would benefit a country and attempting to force them to industrialize. Forcing a group of people to eat animal feed when the money to provide food for them, or the means to grow food, is a travesty.
The World Bank forcing a country to fit it's standards of western industrialization is not fair and doesn't meet the needs of the agricultural country of Malawi. In fact, refusing subsidies just hurts the nation instead of helps it. Of all organizations, one can only hope that the World Bank would be able to understand relevant needs of nations, not forced ideals of how an economy SHOULD look.
This article, "Malawi Versus the World Bank," is about the impact a group of economic organizations called the "Washington Consensus" has on rural families living in the small southern African nation of Malawi. The Washington Consensus associated economists and policymakers with creating a situation in Malawi that forced rural farmers there to trade a day's labor, for a day's food. They also forced these farmers to sell timber and roofing for cash so they could purchase food, beg for food, or unfortunately go hungry. How is it that the World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) economists would mandate a policy that causes so much human suffering? Malawi is one of the poorest nations in the world, with a populations of approximately thirteen million people. It is hard to believe that a nation that already suffers is forced to basically go hungry.
ReplyDeleteWith Malawi being one of the poorest nations in the world, they undergo a period of time in which their main crop, maize, is greatly diminished which makes the people living there have to cope with not much food. Without the fertilizers their crops cannot grow which leads to malnutrition and only about 2 meals per day. The hunger crisis's first step was to skip meals. How does the World Bank and IMF in Malawi cause all this human suffering is what the current president asks.
ReplyDeleteThis article to me wasn't as interesting as previous articles we had to read mainly because of what the topic was about. The topic about a group called the "Washington Consensus" where they force rural farmers over in Malawi to trade their days worth of labor for a day's worth of food, and tear up their homes in order to get a profit out of the parts from their home. I learned a little about what Malawi is about but reading articles like these I feel that it doesn't really benefit me at all to know these facts except that i learned what is going on over in Malawi.
ReplyDeleteThis was not one if the most articles to read. However, I did learn some information that I never knew before. Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world and their main crop is corn. There is a period of time where they experience corn diminishing. This causes so many problems to the population. People become malnourished and go hungry. The life expectancy only reaches to 37 years of age. They have to go down to two meals a day and breakfast is not on the menu. Without the nitrogen rich fertilizer, this crop cannot grow. It was kind of a depressing article. These people rely solely on agriculture to live day to day. It is good to be aware of other countries around the world and hear about situations that are not common where you live.
ReplyDeleteIt seems crazy that a program/policy would be put into place that would cause so much damage to a population. Something as easy to get in the U.S. as fertilizer is taken for granted when people rely so heavily on it to survive. Although the structural adjustment policy may have been needed, however to take away from the lives of so much of the population is inhumane and makes no sense. I feel that if it were a more industrialized country, it would have been easier, however, in a country based mainly on agriculture, it is irrational and outright dumb to eliminate something that is so crucial. The government overruling the subsidies was the best thing they could have done, and the resulting surplus of maize after this is proof.
ReplyDeleteThe first question I have about this article is why organizations based in Washington D.C. are making all the decisions for a tiny nation that is completely dissimilar to the U.S. socially, politically, economically, etc. It seems to me that they are basing their decisions off of what they assume the citizens of Malawi need rather than actually going out and learning from the indigenous people. While I understand that desperate times call for desperate measures, there is no excuse for making people mix animal feed into their food just to get through the day. Also, the fact that life expectancy in Malawi is a staggeringly low 37 years, less than half the expected lifetime of a U.S. citizen, is a clear indication that Malawi is struggling despite the Washington Consensus and their misguided efforts. It is clear a complete overhaul is needed to restore Malawi and the health of its citizens, but this does not mean we must change everything about Malawi culture. If agriculture is as important to their culture as I think, there seems to be no reason to change that to me. People need food and someone needs to grow it.
ReplyDeleteWhen the people of Malawi were put on restrictions for the amount of fertilizer they could use, may were forced to take drastic measures to provide food for their families. Some people had to build roads and were doing hard labor for a few days in exchange they would receive a 50kg bag of fertilizer. people were even selling parts of their home like the roof to provide enough maize for their families. Food shortages effect the next crop because people will have to eat the foods while they are small or still green to keep themselves from starving during the interim. when the washington consensus took over they were soon living in a surplus of maize.
ReplyDeleteI find it horrendous that the people of Malawi have to give up so much in order to just feed their families. Basic feeding of poverty should always be a main concern for any country. The IMF and the World Bank are not allowing the Malawi government to receive a loan until they stop giving out subsidies, which they know are the only reason people are able to grow just enough food to feed themselves. The Malawi government knows that their people are growing White Corn to just get by and then they cannot even store up enough to last when they run out until the next harvest. Then the poor farmers have to find different means of making money to buy food in that time frame. The IMF and W.B. should be focused on providing economic relief instead of giving a loan in which they know how poor Malawi is, they can't pay it back.
ReplyDeleteI learned so much from this article. I had never known how things worked when the World Bank helped a country. I am shocked that they do not see how by not allowing fertilizer subsidies they are hurting the Malawi people. I think the subsidies should be allowed and they still get assistance. Western business methods do not work in unindustrialized countries.
ReplyDeleteI really fail to understand why the World Bank refuses to allow fertilizer subsidies in order to allow the Malawi people to benefit. When you remove the main crop of a people, whether directly or indirectly, it is only right that you take responsibility for that people and aid them. I think Mandy said it perfectly - Western business methods can't be expected to function in unindustrialized countries, and we have no right to expect them too. Further, we need to take a good hard look at what methods would work in countries like Malawi.
ReplyDeleteWhy does the World Bank force Malawi society to industrialize instead of giving them what they need to survive in line with their cultural standards? It's terrible that people who are in need are being forced to industrialize and adapt their culture to a foreign standard in order to survive, and people are not willing to help other people without any benefit for themselves. As well, the WORLD bank should have a more cross-cultural understanding of the WORLD and what people need to live, not just how industry would benefit a country and attempting to force them to industrialize. Forcing a group of people to eat animal feed when the money to provide food for them, or the means to grow food, is a travesty.
ReplyDeleteThe World Bank forcing a country to fit it's standards of western industrialization is not fair and doesn't meet the needs of the agricultural country of Malawi. In fact, refusing subsidies just hurts the nation instead of helps it. Of all organizations, one can only hope that the World Bank would be able to understand relevant needs of nations, not forced ideals of how an economy SHOULD look.
ReplyDelete