The first cafe of the year was one of the most interesting ones I’ve been too. I enjoyed Professor Nicolas van de Walle’s discussion at the start of how we ended up at our current policy about foreign aid to Africa. It was surprising to hear about all the failed approaches. From an economic statement, the approaches that had failed in previous decades all seem very sound. From adding capital to the country to spur growth of new businesses, helping fund large public projects, and finally trying to create a base of educated professionals. All these ideas have great merit.

Walle hit on what he believes is hindering the economic growth of different African states. Widespread corruption among government officials. I agree with him that such an atmosphere  isn’t beneficial to growth. People are less likely to take risks if they think that the field is tilted against them.

One success story that was discussed was Ethiopia, and the reason given  was the strong government leadership that helped remove a lot of corruption. This hits on Walle’s point that he believes the correct path is to displace bad leadership. This is, of course, easier said than done as it has been shown time and time again that outside forces changing a country’s leadership rarely lead to positive results. In the end, the changes must come from inside the country from bold leadership and a sense of national unity. This leaves the USA, and the rest of the world, with a murky policy on how to speed up Africa’s development.

Last week I got to enjoy a talk by Professor van de Walle about the political development of African countries throughout the past few decades. He focused particularly on the effect of foreign economic aid on these countries. I won’t pretend to be an expert on this topic; in fact, I know almost nothing about it. However, I learned quite a lot from this talk even though it was only an hour long. One of the best things about Cornell is how you can find experts on pretty much everything within a few miles radius of yourself. In this case, all I had to do was walk down the stairs from my room!

I found it particularly interesting how the US tends to give aid to African countries that establish democratic political institutions, and withhold it from countries with dictatorships (with a couple exceptions). I think that’s awesome because it could give incentive for these countries to overthrow their dictatorships, and I’m sure it has played a major role in establishing democracies across Africa in the recent decades. Although there are probably economic benefits involved, I like how the US and other democratic countries are able to look outside their borders and offer aid to those in need even if they live halfway around the globe. On the other hand, our country’s defense budget is probably like a hundred thousand times larger than our foreign aid budget, and that’s really a shame. I think the world should spend less money on destroying other countries and more money on helping out their fellow human beings. If an alien were to visit Earth, I think it would be really perplexed as to why we hate other people simply because of arbitrary borders.

I went to Prof. Nicolas van de Walle’s talk on political and economic development in Africa last week. He shared his thoughts about political reform as well as his personal experiences from past field work, which I found very interesting overall. I especially liked the way he summed up colonization (the Americas went first because they had a lot of resources and were relatively easy to colonize, Africa went last because it had little resources and was difficult to colonize). He also spoke about different levels of corruption and foreign aid in Africa. More specifically, he pointed out that many (or most) attempts to counter corruption actually contribute to further problems.

One particular subtopic stood out to me – Prof. Blalock told us that he saw a lot of Chinese people in the airport in Ethiopia recently. I found this to be absolutely bizarre until Prof. van de Walle explained that a lot of Chinese immigrants are attracted to Africa’s open spaces and untapped potential. As a result, people are moving there to open up Chinese restaurants/stores, own farms/land, and pursue new opportunities.

I hadn’t been to a Rose Cafe event last semester but I enjoyed attending one this past week, so I think I’ll likely be attending more of them. The guest was one of our Cornell professors who had notable experience working with and within governments of African countries. Although I have very little knowledge of the topics he spoke about, I found the mini-lecture and following discussion intellectually accessible.

Among the various topics Professor van de Walle presented, what I found most interesting was the corruption that is apparently rampant throughout the governments of African countries. Although I’m sure it can be said that corruption is present to various degrees in likely every national government, the case of certain African governments was somewhat unique in that corruption is blatant. So much so, that it seemed as though corruption was just an acceptable aspect of governing (from what I understood, this may be wrong) that faced no opposition, whether from officials or citizens. However, as I think about it now, I wonder how different this kind of government corruption is from that of the US. Perhaps because there’s structure to the corruption, and a pseudo-legality about certain aspects of it due to loopholes or suspicious lawmaking, it seems less severe.

Prof. van de Walle’s talk last Wednesday on the relationship between foreign aid and economic development in nations with corrupt or ineffective governments was particularly interesting to me because in his Intro to Comparative Politics class, which I’m currently taking, we are discussing  other aspects of the same issue. For class this week, we read a piece by two political scientists, Robert H. Jackson and Carl G. Rosberg, titled “Why Africa’s Weak States Persist: The Empirical and the Juridical in Statehood.” (a link if anyone’s interested in reading it) Jackson and Rosberg draw two different definitions of statehood: the “empirical”, which refers to a socially stable state with effective ruling systems in a defined territory, and the “juridical”, which may lack the on-the-ground functionality and cohesion of an empirical state, but is granted legal “state” status and its trappings (like the right to sit at the UN, for example) by the international community.

Jackson and Rosberg, considering a number of “weak states” in Africa, note many of the same problems that Prof. van de Walle discusssed at the talk: corruption, inability of government to carry out its duties, low levels of economic development, etc. They continue on to offer an explanation why these weak states, which seem to be failing as empirical states, still remain sovereign juridical states today. I’m paraphrasing here, but essentially it’s because the support these states receive from the international community (on account of their status as recognized juridical states) keeps them going. Foreign aid helps finance government budgets, the backing of the international community, etc. Thus, states that wouldn’t have survived long in an earlier, less international setting have held out in the twentieth century and into the present.

Like Prof. van de Walle’s talk, this seems like a compelling explanation. Unfortunately, it doesn’t offer much in the way of solutions. One problem that Prof. van de Walle mentioned was that foreign aid to weak or corrupt governments often ends up being siphoned off to elites or spent on other functions besides those it was intended for. To solve this problem it seems like you have to go one of two ways: either reform the government (or maybe monitor its performance closely), which is tricky, or go around it and have other organizations like NGOS or charities do the work the aid was intended to accomplish. I read another article that suggested that a proliferation of NGOs may lead to the state being run like a protectorate, rather than a sovereign nation. But if governments prove really intractable, is there merit to that approach anyway? Should concerns for national sovereignty prevent attempts at improving the efficacy of aid? Or maybe aid and development potential should be put directly in the hands of the people through some sort of micro-financing program. Any thoughts?

Last week, I attended Nicolas van de Walle’s discussion on the current state of economic development and poverty among African nations.  I tend to find the intersection between geopolitics and the economy very interesting because of the influence one usually has over the other.  Over the last few decades, both indigenous and foreign powers have influenced the development of emerging economies in different African countries.  This is one of the many factors accounting for the stark differences in economic strength of each country.

The influence of foreigners through donations has hurt African nations rather than helped them.  Various Experiments were implemented in different countries to improve economic growth and tackle many problems such as corruption and lack of education.  Projects were implemented to build infrastructure and to build a new generation of influential political leaders.  Nothing seemed to have fixed the problem of corruption and the powerful influence of individuals or private interests.  In fact, during the 90s, countries became worse off than before and even the wealthiest of cities fared poorly.  What Nicolas van de Walle is trying to convey is that foreign support is actually hurting Africa instead of benefitting the emerging economies.  All the projects and foreign monetary aid were meant to bring economic and political stability to African countries.  However, without the foreign monetary intervention, Africa is unlikely to undergo radical change and accept experiencing huge instability.

I wish I was a little more knowledgeable about the economic development of African emerging economies when going into this discussion.  It made me aware of my lack of understanding of what is going on in Africa and the corruption that spread across all countries.  It seems one of the main problems in Africa is the foreign influence and impact it has on many African economies.  For example, China has a huge presence in Africa because of China’s goals to exploit Africa’s resources and use its excessive capital to grow.  I wonder how China’s influence and exploitation will further impact the development of various African countries and the continent as a whole.

As an Animal Science major, I rarely encounter discussions regarding economics and economic development. It was very interesting–and a little harsh–to hear the continent of Africa being described as a bad economic investment compared to southeast Asia. Although I understand that history supports the claim, it still seemed slightly harsh to hear. The discussion was interesting, given my lack of extensive knowledge on the subject. I wish we had gone into deeper detail regarding the occupancy of countries in the past and its relationship to current economic situations. The brief mention of the economic success and then failure of the francophone countries seemed intriguing, but this was not touched upon much more. The sample size of unoccupied countries is small, but Ethiopia seems to be pretty successful in terms of economic growth, which I find very interesting. This was a very different experience for me, but the knowledge gained in this discussion definitely increased my interest in global economic development.

Prof. van de Walle’s discussion on his studies in Africa had a lot of significance to me, for a couple of reasons.  Firstly I’m a government major, so I find academic areas such as this to be very interesting.  Since I was sitting in the front, I couldn’t see if there were any other government majors in the room when he asked, but I get the impression that there weren’t many.  And while I’m more of an international relations kind of guy, the comparative sub-field that Prof. van de Walle’s works in is very related.  Additionally, I found the talk interesting because I’ve been to Africa before–specifically Nairobi on a school service trip during high school.

The discussion served as a good reminder to ward off a unspoken misunderstanding that many people have when thinking about Africa.  People tend to just consider it as a single sovereign unit, as if Africa is both a country and a continent.  Of course, there is a much greater degree of complexity that underlies all conversations regarding it.  Hearing about the differences between the various regions and nations, ranging form political to social and economic, helps remind us of this.

I found Professor Nicolas van de Walle’s discussion on the economy and political state to be interesting. I will admit that economics and politics are not my favorite, but I believe that he brought some good information that is worth hearing. I was surprised to hear that within Africa, there are some countries that are growing very rapid in terms of economy. We have a perception that blinds us to the truth and leads us to believe that African countries were and always will be stagnant. With Professor Nicolas van de Walle’s discussion, this perception was proved totally false.

One piece of the discussion that I found to be very interesting was his opinion on when a country should stop receiving aid. He stated that what he believed was any government that was a military government should stop receiving aid. This would be to ensure that the money is not used in ways that will harm the country and that it is used to improve the state of the economy. Another idea he presented was that any country that had the same person in power for 10 years should stop receiving aid. In his opinion, after 10 years, they are not as successful in their leadership. I think these two points are very important. When we think about issues such as genocide and famine, it is good to take a fresh look and see what else can be done. If a leader is kept in power for over 10 years, this fresh look is no longer possible.

Over all, I think this talk consisted of valuable information. I am excited to hear what the future speakers will bring to the table!

Last week’s Rose Cafe, given by Professor Nicolas van de Walle, pertained to the political impact of economic reform in African countries, specifically focusing on the effect of foreign aid. In order to build up the economies of several developing countries in Africa, foreign nations have contributed large amounts of aid, which is usually viewed as a positive thing. However, from first-hand experience working with multiple African countries through the U.N., Professor van de Walle offered a different perspective. Rather than improving the country, the donated money often enables corruption and a lack of incentive to work in order to solve the county’s problems. Often, one corrupt government is overthrown, just to be replaced by another that’s equally corrupt. This political instability has led to huge economic issues and impoverishment of the population. According to Professor van de Walle, when leaving the office, people would take the light bulbs with them in order to prevent them from being stolen. This shocking example of how desperate many must be illustrates the tumultuous state of the economies of many African countries.

As a partial solution to this complex issue, Professor van de Walle suggested a method of aid in which countries have to meet a certain standard in order to receive and foreign financial benefits. This would perhaps motivate government officials to make an effort in ruling the country in order to avoid being overthrown. He also noted that limiting the number of years spent in office often positively correlates with the effectiveness of the ruler, regardless of the type of government. Perhaps if some of these methods were implemented and enforced, the political and economic problems faced by corrupt countries would be mitigated over time.

Last Wednesday, we had Professor Nicolas van de Walle talking about issues of economic development and government politics worldwide especially in African.

He began with some projects established last century and discussed their disadvantage. For example, he mentioned that at the beginning, financial aid between governments was largely used to build pure capital project. Later on, people realized that solely depending on capital would not solve the problem. Then, they turned to human capital, which related to investment in education as well as public health. After that, some new issues still arose and that eventually forced government to make economic policy adjustment. One of the focuses was the government corruption because corruption would be in the way of making rational policy. It was also interesting to see a trend that a dictator would perform worse and worse, as he control the realm for longer period.

Professor also listed some example of autocracy through which some dictators make a fair amount of money.  Indonesia had a restriction on import of chocolates. Some people use their privilege to gain huge profit from the scarcity of such goods. That was astonishing.

Overall, this was the first Rose Cafe this semester. This informative session gave us a large scope to look at. I enjoyed it. At last, wish everyone a good start of the semester~

Last Wednesday, I attended the Becker-Rose Café series talk given by Professor Nicolas van de Walle from the Department of Government. His area of expertise is on how politics affect the economic development of countries, especially those in Africa. I learned a great deal about the economic status of many African countries. Professor van de Walle gave a great summary of the context and development their economies. I also picked up on some interesting facts. Ethiopia is among the few African countries that were the least or not colonized. Its economy is growing at a faster rate than the US economy, but it still very much resembles the economies of African countries that were colonized.

There was something that Professor van de Walle mentioned that stood out to me. Countries, such as the US, are quick to try and aid foreign countries, like many of those in Africa, by developing their agricultural and other natural resources. It is usually perceived that this along with monetary aid will alleviate many of the stresses that developing countries face. However, these countries overlook the internal obstacles that a developing country faces, which often stem from the country’s political instability. In the case of the African countries that Professor van de Walle talked about, this also involves a great deal of political corruption. One example he gave was in Cameroon where certain food products are not allowed to be imported into the country unless it is for special occasions and holidays. In past Rose Café talks, political instability has been a common theme.

It is also a recurring question of whether or not countries, like the US, overstep boundaries by getting involved in other countries’ affairs. I think that more developed countries have good intentions in trying to give developing countries a boost, but it does get a little murky when developed countries’ own economic interests are involved.

My hope is to become more cognizant of foreign affairs. We should want to help all countries advance and be in a good place globally. Though, I believe that we need to be mindful of every aspect of a country’s inner workings, especially the well-being and livelihood of its people. When we forget this, we forget the true purpose of our efforts.

We were fortunate to have professor Nicolas van de Walle come to the Rose Cafe. He enlightened us regarding the political and economic development of developing countries in Africa. He focused greatly on the impact of foreign aid on these countries. Generally, we often view this type of aid in a very positive light because seemingly, it would be utilized to address issues such as humanitarian crises, medical emergencies, etc., but in reality, there are enormous complexities that come along with such significant “donations”. As the professor stated in the session, often times this aid can be responsible for generating 15-20% of a nation’s budget. Thus, many of these donators expect to exert great influence in regards to the manner that their money is allocated. Unfortunately, the business and economic interests of these individuals or governments are often not in line with the best interests of the countries they send monetary aid to. As a result, the money is unable to be utilized in critical areas like developing core infrastructure or addressing humanitarian crises. Worse yet, many of these countries suffer from severe internal corruption. The professor recounted how in one of his visits to an African country, people often had to take everyday objects with them when they left their homes due to the amount of theft that existed in these countries.

The professor concluded the session with a large idea: most of the times, democracy is the best way to achieve significant political, economic, and societal growth in a developing nation. While, an in-depth argument of this idea is certainly beyond the scope of a one hour session, he suggested that the negative impact of issues such as corruption would certainly be greatly minimized and also provides a healthy environment and atmosphere for infrastructural development. This Rose Cafe was highly informative and enjoyable.

Professor Nicolas van de Walle spoke about how high levels of corruption in African countries have impacted the democracy and economic development of those countries. As someone from Bangladesh, I was intrigued to hear that African nations are going through similar struggles. I thought that economic development without democracy was unique to Asian countries but it was interesting to hear otherwise.

It was also insightful to learn that an argument such as, well-off nations should give more money to developing nations, is somewhat invalid because corruption and other factors hinders proportional development to amount of money being given. Hence it is better to donate for education and prioritize education for everyone, because education has been what has proven best to improving living and working standards. Education has the ability to change mindsets and decrease the impact of corruption, so that corruption is no longer able to remain the norm.

Professor Nicolas van de Walle’s talk about the relationships between economic development, democracy, and corruption particularly in African nations was filled with interesting ideas and insights. He discussed how some undemocratic nations have been able to increase developments in infrastructure and their economies. As someone who has very little knowledge of this area of expertise, I previously believed that democracy and economic development, for the most part, went hand in hand. Of course, there have been quite a few exceptions to this in the past, however, this is the main ideology I’ve come to know. Thus, listening to the talk was eye-opening in that I was exposed to more exceptions, making me more curious about the relationships between economic development and democracy throughout history and even now in the present.

Regarding the relationship between corruption and democracy, I found it very interesting when, if I remember correctly, he said that many democratic African governments throughout history have suffered from a good amount of corruption at all levels of government, from local to heads of state. This relationship is also an interesting and complex one to study as there are many factors that can influence how government operates. Because there are always constant societal and cultural changes occurring all over the world at any given moment, the relationships between economic development, democracy, and corruption are also continuously shifting in every single governing body across the world. Therefore, I think these connections are essential to understanding how we can better our governments in the future to increase economic development, democracy, and decrease corruption.

I was excited to go to the Rose Cafe series this week with Professor Nicolas van de Walle from the Department of Government. As a high school student I had started to develop an interest in government. I had some experience living in a corrupt country so I was very interested in the topic of how politics drives economic development. Professor van de Walle has a lot of experience, visiting and living in some countries in Africa so he understands the depth of corruption in some of the countries. We started the discussion with the history on how donors viewed foreign aide and then delved into how foreign aide can be used to improve economic development. It was interesting that I shared his views on how foreign aide could help developing countries.

At first thought, people would think that giving more money to the developing countries would help them. However experience has shown us that even with all of the money, there is something more about the human nature which hinders the development. After realizing that giving more money to the countries does not yield a proportional development, the donors decided to spend more money on education. It is a rational thought, after all the developed countries have a high percentage of the population getting a higher education. Although the new focus on education improved the countries, there was not as much development as the donors expected. One of the major reasons for this is the rampant corruption. As a person who has lived in a country with significant corruption, I understand the difficulties of improving people’s lives in such an environment. When you live in such a country, corruption becomes a very real part of everyday life. It is always there as a hindrance to anything you want to accomplish, which also takes away from the motivation of accomplishing your goals. Donors continue to face the issue of corruption in the highest level of governments. If there is a solution to eradicate corruption in the highest levels of government, we would see a ripple effect. If we are able to find a solution to the corruption, most of the problems the developing world face would significantly reduce.

When describing the history of foreign aid to African nations,Professor van de Walle acknowledged how past policies were ineffective at generating satisfactory economic growth. Capital investments didn’t work. Improved infrastructure didn’t work. Now the answer appears to be eliminating corruption so that the flow of incoming aid isn’t damned up in the personal coffers of dictators and their cronies. And yet the past failures of economists don’t inspire confidence.

Furthermore, counterexamples exist of autocratic states that have managed economic development better than that of democratic counterparts. While these states (namely Rwanda and Ethiopia) have managed to reduce corruption, they are not the democratic ideals that Western economists promote. Repressive states are undesirable, yet their success seems worrisome. Are there other factors beyond an honest democratic government that push developing nations from the red into the black? The issue at hand is complicated and the source of much suffering, and there appears to be no known solution that is desirable, practical, and effective to produce meaningful change.

Professor Nicolas van de Walle kicked off this semester’s series of Rose Cafes with a talk on government and economic prosperity. I enjoyed hearing about his experiences working for the UN in Tunisia and Cameroon, and how he observed corruption for many years before he was allowed to speak of such matters within the UN. Professor van de Walle emphasized how he believes democracy, short terms for leaders, and free press are key to minimizing government corruption and thus allowing the possibility of prosperity. As a student focusing on culture and healing practices in China, Professor van de Walle particularly piqued my interest when he sighted China as the one example that contradicts his theory. As Professor van de Walle spoke of communist practices coexisting with prosperity, I thought to how ancient Traditional Chinese Medical (TCM) practices are coexisting with modernization. I think it is worth delving deeper into understanding what drives these dualities.

Last Wednesday at Rose Cafe, Professor van de Walle of the Department of Government spoke to us about African economic development. I knew little about Africa’s political and economic history to begin with, so I was very interested in learning more from an expert. The world is becoming increasingly interconnected and Africa’s economic and political state will affect every other country.

Due to Africa’s richness in natural resources, it was victim to colonization by European powers. However, after countries slowly started gaining independence, their rate of economic growth was still very slow, and Professor van der Walle attributes this lag to bad government and its immense corruption. Bribery and stealing entire budgets were common occurrences. Professor van de Walle suggested combating corruption by cutting off money aid to offending countries, and offered a set of criteria to determine whether a country should receive international aid.

I thought it was pretty amazing how Professor van de Walle spent a substantial amount of time in Africa directly observing and experiencing their government and corruption. During his talk, I was intrigued to hear how he applied his economics and government background to exploring the reasons behind Africa’s lag in economic growth. Now that increasing number of countries see the potential for growth in Africa, they are investing more in the country. However, the current political system and level of corruption directly affects a country’s willingness to invest. Professor van de Walle concludes that a democratic system of government has proven the most successful form of government in Africa. Only very few exceptions of thriving non-democratic countries exist. I enjoyed Professor van de Walle’s talk because it gave me many new insights on the political economy of Africa.

Professor Walle shared his story and discoveries of political economy trends of development for Africa. Africa is a continent that displays a unique financial history and track that we are not fully aware about. The countries such as Nigeria were once rich with agricultural resources and oils and this lead to them being colonized for exploitation. However, even after being independent, these countries were still not developing to their potential that they were once were in the beginning primarily because of corruption. Professor Walle noticed mainly that high-level corruption in finances was one of the main forces that put many African countries behind in economic growth. He wanted to delve more into these types of issues and thus was his motivation in investigating the financial trajectory in different countries. Personally, it was amazing for me to hear how he had obtained an economic background from London School of Economics and applied his knowledge in the field working in two countries. He noticed that the Ministry of Health had lost most of its budget most probably due to high-level corruption that was politically motivated since the President would not put the Minister of Health in jail. Thus, Professor Walle believes that democratic styles of government would help to improve the economies of these countries in Africa. Most democracies are economically stronger than their neighboring countries. Very few examples of no democratic governments are economically progressing, such as China and Ethiopia. I found interesting that Ethiopia has many Chinese people because China in the recent two decades have decided to invest a lot in Africa. It is incredible to see that it had grown from one Chinese restaurant to many restaurants. Overall, the talk had provided numerous economic insights that helped me gain a new perspective in political and economic developments.

Professor Nicolas van de Walle discussed governance in Africa and it was quite interesting to learn about the development of Africa over centuries, from colonialism to self-governance and a very active interest from foreign powers. It was a bit of a shock to hear that moving Africa from being occupied by Britain and France to being an independent continental power may have negatively affected its development but it does make sense when you realize that self-sufficiency may not have been fully established yet. Africa is in a delicate place right now with various geopolitical conflicts and while foreign aid is pouring in, Professor van de Walle points out that it might not be as effective as you would like it to be.

For one, the majority of the funding for various infrastructural projects is actually from foreign aid and that creates an imbalance of power as Africa would be naturally inclined to listen to the foreigners, possibly risking its national interests. Additionally, the capital that was pouring in was never effective for long-term development. Even though there were major improvements in welfare, healthcare, education etc in 1970s but it was rendered futile after the oil crisis in the following decade. Obviously, this lead to the bankruptcy of many different countries. It is evident that excessive foreign aid is not really effective because it doesn’t teach the countries to stand on its own two legs. Professor van de Walle argued that democracy would be the best solution for stability in Africa but it would be hard not only because of the rampant corruption and dictatorships already in place, but the transition to the new form of government would create a period of economic and social instability; foreign powers in particular would be averse to such a change because they have already invested immensely into the courtly and they wouldn’t want to disrupt that.

Africa is a continent full of fertile agricultural land and natural resources. It was surprising to hear that there is a great amount of Chinese migration to the region but the clean air, availability of agricultural work and other opportunities makes Africa very attractive. This speaks to the untapped potential of Africa and it is apparent that the growth of the region was mishandled over the years. There are a few countries that are quite successful that have democracies but the majority are dictatorships. Dictatorships seem to be effective for a period of time, cleaning up corruption after a coup and stabilizing the region. However, as the term stretches and the ousting of corruption simply equals prosecuting members of the previous party in power, such a form of government looks less and less attractive. Democracy in the long run would be more beneficial because governments can be held accountable. This governmental transition and an establishment of a more delicate, Africa-favored foreign aid policy would be crucial in allowing this region to grow into a developed one.

During this week’s Rose Café on development in Africa, Professor Nicolas van de Walle made an interesting statement. He said that he “wouldn’t force Ethiopia to democratize because that could counter its economic advancement.” What really struck me about this declaration is how clearly it illustrates the tension in international relations between acting for economic or pragmatic purposes and acting to uphold moral standards. Professor van de Walle suggested that there are many types of governments he does not believe merit aid from the US or other developed countries. For example, if a government has been in place for over ten years, if a government was instated via military coup, or if a government is not sharing the cost of the development and promoting local ownership, then he does not believe western countries should support it.

Saying that Ethiopia should be exempted from these standards suggests that sometimes, the international community finds it easier to accept “good enough,” especially when economics come into play. Still, I think it is important to truly question any tradeoffs that favor pragmatics over morality since upholding moral values is in general extremely difficult. I also wonder whether the people of Ethiopia would prefer that the international community prioritizes the economy (which may have more benefits in the short-term) or instituting ethical institutions and practices (which may be more beneficial for the nation in the long-run).

When I hear the word corruption, I think of officials high up in a government stealing from the citizens and preventing the country from developing.  However, according to Professor Nicolas van de Walle, there are different levels of corruption that exist in African countries.

There are two types of corruption that Prof. van de Walle discussed: high level corruption and low level corruption, and these do not always go hand in hand. There are some countries with high level corruption but not low level corruption and vice versa.  van de Walle defined high level corruption as the “bad” type of corruption, which is politically driven and impacts operation of the government, such as an official taking half of the health budget.  Low level corruption, on the other hand, is not devastating like high level corruption. This is day to day corruption, like an official charging someone five dollars to get cell service. In most places where this happens, the officials have low wages and there is little or no taxation. People are able to accept low level corruption and pay the officials the minimal fee.

I found it interesting to hear about the different levels of corruption and their impact a country’s citizens.  I was also surprised to hear that when Prof. van de Walle first started working for the UN, he was not allowed to mention corruption.  Nowadays, high level corruption is heavily considered when countries are deciding which governments to give aid to.

This week’s Rose Cafe was very interesting. I particularly liked that less people were there, which made it more like an actual conversation. The talk focused on government corruption in African countries and the impact that corruption has on the population. I was intrigued by this topic because it wasn’t something I had given much thought to before. Of course, I knew many countries in Africa were poor, but I never really considered the reasoning behind the poverty. In Africa many governments are corrupt on a scale that is almost incomprehensible. Entire department budgets are stolen, dictators are in power for decades, and markets are manipulated to restrict citizen’s access to goods. Professor van der Walle discussed several possible solutions, including limiting foreign aid and imposing term limits.

I thought the most interesting element of the talk was brought up by Professor Blalock, which is that a large number of Chinese people are currently immigrating to Africa. I was totally unaware of this migration trend, but it makes sense. They view Africa as an area of untapped potential, which it is. Hopefully they are helping to bring in new business and infrastructure, which will help to increase the general living standard.

This week I had the opportunity to attend a very eye-opening lecture by Professor Nicolas van de Walle about government in Africa. I was completely blown away by his description of all the corruption that takes place in many African governments. For example, he said that large amounts of money would simply disappear from the government in Cameroon, and workers would often take their office lightbulbs home with them at the end of the day for fear that somebody would steal them overnight. According to van de Walle, many of the governments were simply looking to profit off of everything, placing 400-500% tariffs on imported goods without any guilt over the resulting strangulation of the economy. All of these facts were a complete shock to me. It made me realize how much we take for granted in the United States – if somebody discovers government corruption, they are usually hailed as a whistleblower and an exemplary citizen. Senators or Representatives may assign people to look into the corruption. The people involved in the corruption will usually lose their jobs and/or be subject to criminal punishment. In the countries that van de Walle described, the citizens have none of those options – they simply have to deal with it.

van de Walle also talked about how attempts to “reform” the corruption are often not only unhelpful, they actually further the corruption. Dictators who lead successful coups often promise to get rid of the corruption, and they make it a point to prosecute the allies of the previous president, but then right after that the new leaders end up being just as corrupt as the old ones. To me, this seems like an incredibly vicious cycle – and as van de Walle pointed out, one that can only be solved by democracy.

Finally, van de Walle’s suggestions for how to encourage democracy in such countries made me, again, realize how lucky we are to have democracy in the United States and how important it is to not take it for granted. van de Walle said that term limits are one of the most important factors to preventing corruption – he suggested that any government run by the military or by a president who has been in power for more than ten years should not be eligible to receive foreign aid. In the United States, the 2-term limit for presidents is something that we are all familiar with, but never really give much thought to. van de Walle made me realize how lucky we are to have such checks and balances.

Yesterday at the Rose Cafe, I had the chance to hear Professor Nicolas van de Walle of Cornell’s Department of Government speak about his experiences with Africa’s economy and dictatorship. There have been many efforts to further development in Africa, as many people (specifically  British and French colonists) believed the land had more potential for development than Asia or the Americas. For the most part, development in Africa was a problem of capital; the more that people believed was built in capital — schools, dams, etc. — development would grow, but this proved to be a slow process. Much of the money in the 1970s was spent on human capital — education and public health centers. This time proved to be productive for Africa, but this money was soon washed away with the oil crisis in the 1980s.

Many countries in Africa went bankrupt because of this and caused an era of structural adjustment. The main problem with why development would not work in Africa was placed on the corruption and bad government placed in many countries with dictatorships. V,an de Walle stated that some of the most successful countries in Africa (with the exception of Ethiopia) were successful because of their implementation of democracy. The government needs to be held accountable with its expenditures in order to be successful. Otherwise, with a dictatorship, the government and the country falls into disarray.

One of the topics van de Walle touched on was the concept of foreign aid and why he believed it didn’t work a lot of the time, especially for Africa. He shared his belief with us that the best way to help other countries without setting precedence or hurting the people is to not have military governments give money. He believes that with any country that has a power set in place, such as a dictator, for ten years or more should not be spoon-fed aid or given hand outs unless they have a part in a project that will benefit them. I see van de Walle’s point in this, that if an African country is in need of development and can provide  for half of the funds for a project to benefit the people, then we could provide aid. However, I feel that it is an obligation of the countries that have good relations with a country under dictatorship to help dig them out — not necessarily to spoon feed them, but give them the help they would not otherwise get from other powers.

I was glad to go to van de Walle’s talk because there is so little in the media talked about Africa and its economy, besides the images of starving children and the poor living there. I was surprised to hear that a good amount of countries in Africa are very well off, and that there are also Chinese immigrants settled in Africa in order to make a living. This gave me a good set of information about Africa I would not have otherwise heard from the media.

At Rose Café this Wednesday, Professor Nicolas van de Walle talked about governance in Africa and it’s implications on their respective countries. He talked a lot about dictatorship and political coups, but what surprised and fascinated me the most this fact:

There are more than 1 million Chinese people in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Rouse House Professor Garrick Blalock spent some time in Ethiopia this past winter break, and he noted that he would have guessed that the airport he landed in was in China, because of the amount of Chinese people and restaurants around. This fact is so shocking to me; I never thought/knew there was a strong Chinese immigrant pull in Africa.

Now that I think about it, though, it makes sense. Professor Nicolas van de Walle attributed this migration of people to the abundance of unexploited open agricultural land, natural resources, and clean air in Africa. Many Chinese people are settling down in the region to own farms and land. I was in Beijing last year, and pollution and concrete are more common than trees. Africa has resources and opportunities that are unavailable in China.

I am interested in seeing how that migration affects trade relationships, genetics, and the preservation/alteration of cultural and traditional ways of life.

I was able attended a very interesting Rose Cafe, where Professor Nicolas van de Walle from the Cornell government department attended. He spoke about governmental and economic reform in African countries, which was of great interest to me, because I was just accepted into Cornell’s Global Health program and I will be traveling to Tanzania this summer.

I was particularly interested in the governmental reform aspect, because of the way that Tanzania’s republic formed. Julius Nyerere, known as the founder of Tanzania, ruled from 1961 to 1985, and was an impassioned advocate of socialism, but often mauled by his critics who state that his idealism failed to deliver prosperity to his people.

To his credit, Nyerere stepped down peacefully and voluntarily, long before it became fashionable for Africa’s self-appointed life presidents to subject themselves to the verdict of their peoples in multi-party elections.

In 1967 came Nyerere’s Arusha Declaration, his policy on socialism and self-reliance. Its cornerstone was ujamaa, or familyhood, which was imposed on Tanzania in the following years. The aim was to collect people into villages or communes, where they would have better access to education and medical services. Nearly 10 million peasants were moved and a substantial majority were forced to give up their land. But to most Tanzanians, the idea of collective farming was abhorrent. Many found themselves worse off; incentive and productivity declined, and ujamaa was effectively abandoned. It was a measure of Nyerere’s international prestige that the failure of this fundamental policy at home in no way dented his global standing.

Even to this day, Nyerere, is revered in Tanzania, and in East Africa, due to him providing a moral leadership to Tanzania, and indeed Africa, when the continent was taking its first shaky steps after independence.

When we walk into a grocery in America, our eyes meet aisles and aisles of a variety of food items from all over the world. Just within the cookie aisle, we see cookies made in the U.S, cookies imported from England, or The Netherlands, or Japan, or Mexico. Sometimes I even think that so many options are deterring me from making a quick decision!

When Professor Van de Walle’s talked about the economies of African countries, I learned that some countries like Tunisia have economic sanctions that limit the amounts of goods imported from outside countries. He talked about how Tunisians would go into a store and find only one option. During the holidays, the government would raise some sanctions, but the prices would be 300% to 400% higher than normal. Thus, the importers, who usually have ties to the government would make an extreme profit. Thus, Professor Van de Walle’s talk made me realize how privileged we are to be able to have variety and choice, and an American economy and culture that promotes diversity.

Furthermore, another interesting fact that I learned during the talk was that Africa, particularly Ethiopia, is now attracting lots of foreign investment. Professor Blalock and Professor Van de Walle talked about the vast amounts of Chinese immigrants there are in some parts of Africa. This really amazed me because I can only imagine the amount of adaptation these first wave of Chinese immigrants have to face, especially in regards to the difference in languages and culture, the difference in climates, the difference in vegetation, soil, and food.

Tonight I attended a very interesting talk by Professor Nicolas van de Walle from the Cornell government department on governmental and economic reform in African countries. Going into this lecture I knew very little about the economic past and present of Africa, so I was glad that Professor van de Walle took the time to provide some historical background for this topic.

Professor van de Walle started his lecture by outlining the history of foreign donors’ attempts to increase Africa’s economic development in the aftermath of colonialism. He explained that this foreign involvement began after World War II and at first focused on increasing physical capital such as roads and harbors and improving human capital through health care and educational programs. These strategies, however, failed to strengthen most African economies by the 1990s.

For me some of the most interesting parts of the lecture were when Professor van de Walle incorporated personal anecdotes from his fieldwork in Africa. To illustrate the economic collapse of the 1990s, for instance, he shared a story about visiting the office of a government official while working for the U.N. in Cameroon. When the official went to leave his office for the day he unscrewed all the lightbulbs from the lamps and took them with him so that they wouldn’t be stolen while he was gone. To me this was a very striking image of the poverty and crime that was present in the society at that time.

Professor van de Walle ended his talk by suggesting that the only way which donor organizations can effectively insure economic reform in Africa is by refusing to support military governments and dictatorships, many of which are financially corrupt.

I came away from this lecture feeling that I have a much clearer understanding of the complexities involved in trying to implement change in a foreign country.

Tonight at the Rose cafe Nicolas van de Walle, a Professor in the department of government.  I had not read what the talk was about so I found it very interesting that the focus was on the political economy of development in Africa and on democratization and the politics of economic reform in the region.  Africa is not a focus in many history classes, the only mention in my class was when talking about slavery and colonization.  It was interesting to hear more of an economic/governmental talk about Africa as I had not heard much about it previously.  What I found interesting was that one of the only countries in Africa that was economically successful and had a dictatorship without corruption was one that had not previously been colonized.  All other countries who were colonized and receive help from the UN are unstable and have corrupt governments.  This stands as some proof that perhaps if we stop trying to decide everything and provide funds and instead gave them knowledge they may be able to pull themselves together.  One assumption, however, that is being made by both Professor de Walle and the UN is that being a developed country is better.  Perhaps having advanced agricultural methods and farming methods would be beneficial to provide the country with food but other than that it seems that other countries are deciding what is best for another country.

I also think that developing a place like Africa which has such a important diversity of animals and space.  Developing it could turn the once beautiful safari’s filled with animals into a smog filed suburbia with no wildlife.

Today at the Rose Cafe, Professor Nicholas van de Walle spoke about his experiences and work related to the governing bodies and economic situations of African countries. Over the course of the hour, a theme seemed to surface about the significant influence of certain forces, namely money and capital.

The kind of corruption that Professor van de Walle described as the most crippling for a country is the one in which government officials take the majority of the funds, for example, from the health department. The greed of those in power combined with the absence of an incentive, such a term limits, to do good for their country motivates their actions and leaves the majority of the people in poverty.

The “donors community” of the world, namely government organizations, are also motivated by money and economic well-being. The underlying goal of providing aid to poor African countries is to ensure economic stability, thus providing some insurance for the economic well being of the country giving the aid, such as the United States. Ensuring economic stability translate into maintaining the status quo in Africa. Professor van de Walle argues that total reform of government, such as a shift from dictatorship to democracy, would likely have the greatest positive impact on the economy of the African country in question. However, the political institutions of outside nations that donate money to Africa would not support such a radical change because it would surely lead to a period of economic, political, and social instability. Thus, the monetary motivations of the donors prevent important changes from taking place.

Another important influence that I noticed but is perhaps is not directly related to the ideas discussed above, is the influence of our first experiences. Professor van de Walle’s first job after receiving his Master’s degree at the London School of Economics was working for the United Nations in Tunisia, where he experienced and saw the existing corruption and poverty first-hand. He mentioned that this experience inspired his academic work on the doctoral level as well as future travels. This account demonstrates that although we may not realize it until we look upon our “firsts” in hindsight, but our first exposure to new things directly and indirectly shapes the actions we take and choices we make in the future.

Professor van de Walle’s presentation today gave us a comprehensive glimpse into the history, government, and economy of Africa while simultaneously touching on a few very broadly-applicable themes.

I attended the lecture give by Nicolas van de Walle on “good government” and Africa. I can’t say that before this lecture I knew anything about Africa, because geography is definitely not my strong suit. I had heard something about colonization before, but had never known that all but one country in Africa was previously colonized, mainly by the British and French, and some by the Portuguese. While The United States started as colonies, it quickly moved away from that and began statehood before much of the country had even been explored.

This brings me to the stark differences to other Continents that Africa maintains. There have been many attempts over the decades and centuries to help Africa out of poverty and into a “good” government. There have been apparently many attempts to figure out what plagues parts of Africa, be it lack of technology, lack of education, or corruption. All three have been theories put to the test, using aid from other countries to build dams, build schools, or put new people in power. Unfortunately, due to massive corruption, inequality, and strictness, nothing has seemed to fix the problem so far. It was interesting to hear takes by both Jarrett and Nicolas, as they both have been to Africa and I have never known anyone else who has.

This talk made me realize that I really don’t know much about places that aren’t very publicly talked about here in the United States, and I should take it upon myself to learn more.