Thursday, May 19, 2011

Coffee Buyers and Other Outsiders

The village recently had a debate in the families around the topic of Do Outsiders Help Africa? In my "family" the debate was even more heated than the one on "What do you think about Sugar Daddies and Mamas?" from a few months back. Every single student in the family thought that the vast majority of outsiders - both Africans going to other African countries, and non-Africans in Africa - were helping for their own profit, and that, therefor, they were not helping anyone. All the students comments that I can remember, though, qualified that Agahozo-Shalom was the exception. And then continued to talk about exploitation, profit-seeking, and disaster from everyone else.

When the discussion turned towards the general economic future of Africa as a whole, all strongly felt that the continent as a whole would never be on the same level as the other continents in the world because "the other countries won't let us get ahead." One girl kept on arguing that "God gave us equal intelligence so we will catch up" but all passionately responded that "people will take our resources and then sell them back to us for more, so that we have nothing." One example: Coffee. In Rwanda, drinking coffee is all imported from countries who buy non-processed Rwandan coffee beans and make it drinkable. And, trust me, it's annoying: coffee coffee everywhere nor any drop to drink. For less than three times the price in the United States.

I considered pointing out that making the coffee drinkable was an added-value that they would not have if they only sold it internally, or which would cost, perhaps, more if processed in Rwanda. But I didn't.

The conversation included many other examples of profit-seeking outsiders. Americans and Europeans in Libya was the star example, thrown around as a given. There was a discussion on DR Congo, and a longer discussion on how profit could include prestige of individuals who do charity work in Africa, and are therefor doing it for their own self-interest. While Agahozo-Shalom was, again, mentioned as an exception, they pointed out that staff members make a salary, so it is not self-less giving.

The conversation was wrapped up with more insistence that Africa would never catch up with other continents, with one stubborn girl insisting again that Africa would be ahead one day because of knowledge and education. Everyone either laughed at her or got upset. This particular lone optimist is fantastic at using social networking cites, e-mail, and computers, but is very much struggling in every other subject in school. She is social and likes to talk. She would probably be a great saleswoman.

At the end, I was asked what my opinion was. I happened to have read the New York Times book review for Charles Kenny's Getting Better in which he argues that African countries are advancing very quickly if non-economic indicators are taken into account, such as life expectancy and education. I mentioned this, and will hand out the article the next time I see the students.

I also pointed out that, just because people's interest is to profit does not necessarily mean they are not helping. Maybe Rwandans are becoming really productive employees, because education is sky-rocketing, so people want to come to Rwanda and hire Rwandans. And maybe MTN and Tigo cell phone service providers are helping Rwanda, even if they are here for profit.

I casually asked a young professional Ugandan living in Rwanda what she thought, shortly after the debate. "Do you think African countries, on average, will be at the same level as other continents? Will Rwanda or Uganda catch up?" She smiled and shook her head. "No, African will never be as wealthy." It was sort of a given for her. This surprised me because, at a casual glance, her lifestyle does not seem so different then the lifestyle of individuals with the same education in developed countries. She has a laptop at home and another one she uses from work, she rents an apartment in the city where she lives, she wears really nice suits. She goes on vacation, occasionally, to visit her family. She also sometimes splurges on ice-cream in a country where it is pricey by developed-country standards. She has dental insurance. I don't even have dental insurance. Which speaks about my own poor choices in prioritizing.

The students' insistence that exploitation of outsiders would prevent Africa from ever reaching the same level as other continents was very pessimistic, but I hardly doubt it will have any influence on their own life decisions to be as educated as possible and succeed as much as possible. Perhaps pessimism about the state of one's geographical region is not as important as optimism about one's own personal future.

1 comment:

  1. Regarding the students' belief that Africa will never get ahead because the developed world makes a profit by keeping them down--in reality it is clearly in the selfish economic interests of developed countries if Africa catches up as quickly as possible. The profits to be made by selling them goods produced in the developed world (which they can only afford to buy if they become developed themselves) will far outweigh the losses from having to compete with them as producers of goods. I remember reading some articles about this in Scientific American many years ago.
    This conclusion is actually obvious, if you consider two people, Alice and Bob. In the first case, Alice is much more productive than Bob, and has little use for anything that Bob can produce. She pays Bob a small amount of money for the few things that Bob is best at, and Bob has a very low standard of living, but still higher than if he didn't trade with Alice at all. Alice's standard of living is only marginally higher than if she produced everything for herself, and didn't trade with anyone. In the second case, Alice and Bob are about equally productive, but each is better at certain things. They each produce the things they are best at, and each one trades about half of their output for the things that the other person is better at producing. Obviously, Alice has a substantially higher standard of living than if she didn't trade with Bob at all, which means she has a substantially higher standard of living than she had in the first case. If Alice didn't benefit from trading a lot with Bob, she could simply refrain from doing so, and be no worse off than she was in the first case.

    ReplyDelete