This is the first in a series of blogs where we'll be asking policy makers, politicians, non-profit and organizational leaders, journalists, celebrities, chefs, musicians, and farmers to share their thoughts-and hopes-for agricultural development in Africa. Cross posted from Nourishing the Planet.
Last week, I had the privilege of meeting with the new U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe, Charles Ray. Ambassador Ray was gracious enough to take the time to answer my questions about agricultural development in a country facing political turmoil, high unemployment, and high food prices.
What do you think is needed in Zimbabwe to both improve food security and farmers incomes?
Over the past decade, Zimbabwean small holder farmers have endured a litany of economic, political, and social shocks as well as several droughts and floods resulting in the loss of their livelihoods and food security. Poverty for small holder farmers has greatly increased throughout the country.
In order to restore farmers' livelihoods they need to be supported in a process of sustainable private sector-driven agricultural recovery to achieve tangible household-level impact in food security and generate more household income, as well to promote more rural employment.
The U.S. government through USAID is doing this by supporting programs that provide effective rural extension, trainings and demonstration farms in order to improve farm management by small holder producers. The programs also include support for inputs and market linkages between the farmers and agro-processers, exporters and buyers. These programs are broad-based and cover all communal small holder farmers throughout the country.
The result of this work is increased production, and productivity, lowered crop production costs and losses, improved product quality, and production mix and increasing on-farm value-adding. Together these programs are increasing food security and farmer's incomes as well as generating more farmer income and rural employment of agro-business.
At present, the U.S. is the largest provider of direct food aid in Zimbabwe. We are working with our partners to move from food aid to food security assistance which will use more market oriented approaches and combine livelihoods programs as noted above, which will reduce the need for food distribution.
Do you think Zimbabwe needs more private sector investment? If so, what are ways the U.S. government and other donors can help encourage both domestic and foreign investment?
Zimbabwe certainly needs more foreign direct investment. There is little chance that the country can internally generate the investments required to promote the economic growth it needs without it. But it is the government of Zimbabwe that is responsible for creating the business enabling environment to attract investment including both foreign and national.
At present, much more needs to be done in policy and the legal and regulatory framework and in the rhetoric and actions by the government in order to create the environment conducive to attract investment. Without the clear will of the government to be FDI-friendly there is not much that the donors can do.
Check out the most recent issue of the journal Science which takes a look at ways to improve food security as the world's population is expected to top 9 billion by 2050. To best nourish both people and the planet, the journal suggests a rounded approach to a worldwide agricultural revolution by encouraging diets and policies that emphasize local and sustainable food production, along with the implementation of agricultural techniques that utilize biotechnology and ecologically friendly farming solutions.
David Crisp wonders why the libertarian conservative Rob Natelson wants taxpayers on the hook for the cost of an education at Sidwell for every American student. Price tag: $29k a piece.
It's a good question. One of the things I've often wondered about is why education is one of the areas where libertarians basically give up the ghost on the rest of their theories. They don't rail against government intervention or say that the real driver in cost is government subsidies, they basically just demand that we build an education system that looks a lot like the French health care system -- privately controlled, largely non-profit health care delivery system financed primarily through public insurance (aka vouchers).
Alternately, they even like something closer to Britain's health care system, but with competing networks of hospitals (charter schools).
Anyways, it is all a bit funny.
The strange thing about education, though, is that it is a realm where the fundamental conservative critique is that we pay too much to the workers and we get poor results and the solution is to pay people less. Now, I'm not really sure that either part of this critique is correct, but it is completely baffling. Show me a single corporation on the planet that would conclude that its talent pool for hiring was insufficient and that their proper response is to slash the wages being offered and tell the applicants that they are stupid and I'll show you a firm about to hit really hard times.
Now, it is true that education costs more than it did 50 years ago. But K-12 education is extremely labor intensive. We have teacher to student ratios of probably 25:1 or 30:1. Include other staff -- executive, administrative, athletic, artistic, and support -- and you've got a lot of people working hard for each student. Throw in some particularly high-cost operations like special education (conservatives are pretty good at glossing over this issue) and you need to figure out how to pay for it.
The next piece of this is that people who enter teaching as a profession are not without other options. They come out of school with a B.S. or a B.A. and many public school teachers have advanced degrees, either in education or in a specific field of study.
Although teacher pay may have increased in the last several decades (I honestly don't have inflation-adjusted numbers handy), so has pay in sectors that compete with education, by a lot. If you're a starting college student with some solid math skills and you start evaluating options, which looks more rewarding? Teaching 8th grade math or writing algorithms for Google?
Frankly, given the way that many of our nation's loudest voices (largely from the right) have crapped all over teaching as a profession -- financially and rhetorically -- I'm amazed at the large number of extremely capable people entering the profession (folks like the writers of Intelligent Discontent are the kind of people I'm thinking of).
People choose their jobs for a number of reasons and many of us choose to do work that pays less than what we could earn in other fields because we find the non-monetary rewards to be significant. But teaching and much of other public service hasn't just been degraded financially. Meanwhile, the private sector has been held up as a bizarre pinnacle of brilliance and efficiency (a claim belied by any trip to a Carmike movie theater).
I'm actually pretty supportive of some big think on education policy. Our schools right now work pretty well for kids like me who grow up middle class in a large city in Montana. They don't work so well in other places. But beating up on teachers and their unions is only likely to make the problem worse. Lower pay, less job security, and insults don't improve productivity. They make it worse.
Tom Vilsack is policy blogging on Education at OpenLeft.com. Makes me wonder what our education frontliners think should be priority for a review of the ESEA as it comes up for reconsideration this year.
Back on December 18, 2006 I addressed Rep. Rehberg's hypocritical criticism (in the form of a Missoulian editorial that was never on-line) of Sen. Max Baucus' step towards saving the Rocky Mountain Front from exploratory drilling. That piece appeared here.
In a synopsis, among other things, Rep. Rehberg criticized not only the loss of the Front to drilling, but whined about Washington failing to address "the heart of the problem : America's lack of reliable domestic energy supplies." He went on call for a "comprehensive energy plan that embraces traditional and alternative energy," and said that we "should be making investments here at home, not lining the coffers of foreign governments, many of which are anti-American."
His cynicism went further:
It's possible that in 30 years, when our kids and grandkids are supporting their own families, they'll thank us for not allowing the Front, or these other American avenues of energy, to be tapped for exploration. Maybe they'll be happy they didn't have the opportunity to get a good job in the energy industry."
Well, apparently his hypocrisy knows no bounds.
On January 18 2007 Rep. Rehberg voted against the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (HR 6), otherwise known as CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.
Today's Missoulian published a guest column piece from Rep. Dennis Rehberg, titled "In 'saving' the Front, we lost a piece of the energy puzzle" (sorry, no link).
In his 700 or so words, Rehberg bemoans the loss of the Rocky Mountain Front to energy exploration on two main points - that "the legislative vehicle to make this happen represents the very worst in politics" and that "at a time when America is experiencing an energy crunch...summarily closing off the Front is a potential step backward in the battle to end our dependence on foreign energy."
Americans work way too much, probably to the point that we actually hurt output. That said, I'm not sure that I'm quite down with Rep. Jack Kingston's (R-GA) recent proposal for a 24 hour work week. Sure, working only three days a week sounds good, but how would it actually work out in practice?
Oh, wait. Kingston was proposing it just for members of Congress. Because those longer work weeks interfere with marriages.
Here's a wacky proposal. Need more time with the family? Change the damn campaign finance system so you don't have to devote four hours a day to dialing for dollars.
Here's another proposal -- highlight Kingston's hypocrisy by introducing the "Jack Kingstong Work-Family Balance Act of 2007" with a proposal to shorten the work-week for all Americans -- not just Congresscritters pulling in $160,000 a year -- to 3 days of work a week. Then see if the man will co-sponsor that bill.
Consider this an open thread. The political news cycle is a bit slow right now. That's just fine, as it gives us all some time to breathe.
That said, the 2007 legislature is literally just around the corner. Any particular bills people find interesting? Anything they'd like to see done? Anything you'd like to see opposed. Let us know in comments or drop me an email at singer@leftinthewest.com.
Also, the 2008 election is already (yes, I know) approaching. If you're hearing rumors about candidates running for certain offices, let me know. Also, feel free to send me names of people you'd like to see run. I'll see if we can get a comprehensive list of likely/potential 2008 candidates going. Let us know in comments or drop me an email at singer@leftinthewest.com.
Note: Legislators, feel free (if you're reading), to pitch your own legislation or pending campaign. Anonymity will be respect. I'd just like to compile some basic stuff for readers to keep tabs on.
Last week, I had the privilege of meeting with the new U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe, Charles Ray. Ambassador Ray was gracious enough to take the time to answer my questions about agricultural development in a country facing political turmoil, high unemployment, and high food prices.
