A Journalist Compares US and European Incomes

Reading this article by Remi Adekoya of the Guardian newspaper reminds me of two things that many people take for granted about comparing income across countries. The author is right that notwithstanding the focus on its problems and the unyielding crisis, the European continent still provides the highest standards to living that can be found on the planet today. To be clear, I am less convinced that this is proof that the welfare state as understood in the continent is the only reason for this. Instead, it is more defensible for me to state that this high standard of life for its citizens is underpinned by the fact that by a correspondingly large number of businesses and productive workers. Indeed, the allusion to competitiveness shows that European countries provide opportunity for enterprises to grow and their ranking in the various leagues confirms that.   

In comparing the income of Europeans to that of the United States, it is clear that the United States has chosen a different way of organizing economic activity and its government is less directly involved in large welfare programmes comparable to those in Europe. Comparing incomes by alluding to the average is troublesome but it is not right to therefore dismiss higher incomes in the United States by alluding to the fact that extremely wealthy people such as Warren Buffet raise the average substantially. This article shows the difficulty of comparing incomes across nations with different economic and political structures but does not erase the fact that on the whole, total income is a very potent measure of human well being. In that respect, the United States is still a special nation.

Rwanda's Fund of Dignity

A couple of weeks ago, an experts group of the United Nations published a very detailed indictment of Rwanda's government with uncharacteristically blunt allegations that this government supported M-23 rebels who have committed unbelievable atrocities in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Predictably, the Rwanda's government issued a rebuttal covered here, that questioned the objectivity and standards of proof required to sustain those allegations. The United States and the British Government subsequently communicated that some financial support could be withdrawn due to the gravity of those allegations.

This episode revealed the fact that a country that relies on foreign assistance for a substantial portion of its expenditure runs the risk of pressure for political purposes. Apart from the predictable denials and assertion of sovereignty favoured by many countries on that continent, Rwanda's government went further. At a public meeting, President Kagame inaugurated the establishment of a Development Fund intended to cover the country against the risk of financial assistance being turned into a political tool. New of Rwanda reports here that the the Agaciro Fund was formally established and is a call for ensuring independence from foreign assistance.

To my mind, African countries almost always exhibit this degree of nationalism as a response to a challenge from other areas. I am therefore not impressed by this move and consider it a diversionary technique that fails to respond to the issue at hand. It need not have taken the threats of suspension of financial assistance for a country to respond to that risk. This is mere symbolism which is another matter in which African governments excel. My free advise is that governments that spend substantially more than they can collect in revenues should either expand revenues or cut down expenditure. A development fund as an manifestation of national pride is acceptable to me but does not respond to the need to clarify the allegations that are made. Whereas public sectors officials are falling over one another to make pledges and contributions in public, I am not convinced that these contributions do any more than divert money that would have been saved.
  

What Next for Elephant Conservation?

Illegal trade in ivory has been a main driver of the high mortality of elephants in the African continent for several decades now. For most of that time, the approach has involved using legal instruments at the international level to reduce trade in ivory either by getting rid of existing ivory stocks or by banning trade altogether. The result has been that in most of east, west and central Africa, the elephant populations have continued to fall because the price of ivory has kept rising with increased incomes from China and other Asian nations.

In a very poignant story from the NYT here, Jeffery Gettleman ties the rise in elephant poaching to organized crime and civil wars in parts of the continent of Africa. The most plausible part of his argument is that large and poorly governed territories of Africa leave some opportunities for fighting units to fund their war operations through killing of elephants and trade in ivory. In addition, he states that the rising demand for ivory has made turned armies of the Democratic Republic of Congo and its neighboring countries into organized poaching units who use sophisticated aerial surveillance and choppers to find herds of elephants.

That the populations of the African elephant in the central and eastern African regions are in danger is indubitable. Still, I find that the story is written as if the poaching mechanisms are so sophisticated that the elephant populations throughout the continent are doomed. The connection between state weakness and inability to enforce law is well made but it is clear that not all elephant populations are doomed and neither is every conservation effort failing. What I am less convinced of is the nebulous story tying US government funding to elephant deaths. It is perhaps an attempt to awaken US citizens to pressure their government to give this matter more support in reviewing existing conservation policy.