Skip to content


What constitutes ‘good’ work?

Since I arrived in Kenya, I’ve spent a good deal of time thinking about whether the work we do here is ‘good’ work, and more generally about what could be described as ‘good’ work.

I suppose a lot of the reason for this thinking is the enormous generosity shown by so many of my family and friends when I decided that I was going to volunteer with Camara this year.  A huge number of people put their cash and faith in me that I was coming to Kenya to (in some small way) make the world a better place, and I’m very conscious of that while here.  It would be very easy to have a very enriching personal experience here without actually making that small difference, so it’s something I’m trying to keep at the front of my mind.

So, while I’m going for runs in the morning, having lovely team dinners at night, meeting some of the most interesting people I’ve ever encountered and seeing places I may never get the chance to see again, all that would be a great disappointment if it’s not accompanied by work that actually makes a difference to the lives of some of the Kenyan people we are here to help.

Which brings me to the question of what I consider to be ‘good’ work.  Without deciding this, there’s no standard to which I can hold myself and the work we’re doing here, so I think it’s worthy of a lot of thought.  There are organisations such as Habitat for Humanity which I’ve always had a bit of difficulty with – partly because of the Christian ethos, and partly because I feel that many of their projects have the potential to actually remove potential jobs from African people by displacing them with unpaid Western labour.  The good intentions are there, but the actual positive effect of the work remains questionable to me.  Of course, I should acknowledge that I haven’t worked with them myself, so this may be the mistaken impression of an outsider.

On the other hand, there are organisations such as Medecins sans Frontieres (who a mate of mine is currently working for in Chad) who I have enormous respsct for.  They deliver really badly needed supplies, medicines and doctors to areas which would not have these things without them.  There’s still a question mark over the building of dependecy on aid organisations, and their global structure seems to give rise to some potential duplications and wastage, but by and large, I think there is little negative that can be said about an organisation such as MSF.

If those are the two ends of the spectrum by which I view international aid work in Africa, at this point I think Camara probably sit somewhere in the middle.  There can be no question that we are teaching many people skills they did not previously possess while here in Kenya – no question at all.  But there will (and should) always remain questions about who are the targets of that training, what training could be provided by local rather than Irish volunteers, and whether the model on which Camara needs to be re-examined at a more basic level.

The purpose of this post is certainly not to provide a conclusion.  For now, we’re certainly doing work here while also getting the personal enrichment I described above.  It’ll probably by a couple of weeks after we leave here and get home before I can make a balanced assessment of how ‘good’ that work has been…

Bookmark and Share

Posted in Personal. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , .

Some observations on Mombasa men…

It’s likely that I’ll publish some utter guff here over the next few weeks, as I begin to get accustomed to Kenyan life.  For now, you’ll all have to live with the guff I’m afraid…

I’m currently based in the Camara hub in Mombasa, staying in the Paradise Apartments in the Njali district.  We were living in the city for the first week, but an apartment is much cheaper than even a cheap hotel for the whole team, and it’s an awful lot handier living near the hub now that the training is underway.  I’m currently suffering from an awful dull headache which has been festering for a few days, but hopefully it’ll lift today.  And the team have all arrived and are terrific.  We were stuck in lock-down yesterday in case any difficulties arose in relation to the referendum.  Thankfully, all is quiet on that front.  So we stayed in, caught up on some sleep, cooked some food together (it turns our I make a mean sweet potato, mango and coconut curry!), and had a movie night using a projector we borrowed from the hub – they’re a great group, and we’re really settling into working together quite smoothly.

Anyway, enough of the trivial minutiae of day to day life.  Instead, I’ve been noticing (perhaps unsurprisingly!) the behaviour of the men in Kenya since arriving, and have a few observations to share.

Pride, strength and patriarchy tend to be the standard, cliched descriptions of African men one encounters when reading about the continent.  And so I’ll try to avoid dwelling on those aspects of African masculinity as much as possible.  What has struck me most so far is rather the affectionate, gentle nature of the men.  And the second most interesting characteristic is the degree to which religion is worn on the sleeve – a very open, but not oppressive facet of a huge number of men here.

By and large, I’ve heard much, much more about the homophobia of African societies over the years, than I have about the affection between men which is so prominently displayed here.  At the most basic level, men will shake hands (using a particular handshake involving two grip changes, which I believe is common in other African countries also).  Unlike Western society, where shaking hands is usually restricted to first meetings, formal occasions, or when meeting people you haven’t seen in some time, in Kenya you shake hands with the same people as a greeting every morning, and usually at the end of the day also.  Occasionally, there are additional handshakes when sharing a joke, or as acknowledgement of help being provided by one person to another.

But the affection goes considerably beyond shaking hands.  You regularly see men walking down the street holding hands, or with their arms around each other.  Friends hug all the time, and if people really like you, the handshake greeting rapidly gets extended to a hug on most occasions.  After shaking hands, men will hold your hand while talking to you.  And in general, there is far more affection on display between Kenyan men than I have ever witnessed between Western men outside a Pride parade.  It’s very sweet, very affectionate, and a wonderful thing to witness.  Homophobia may well be prevalent in conversation, but the expression of emotion, and physical contact between men continues to thrive.

As I mentioned above, the other striking fact I’ve noticed about Mombasa men is how openly they discuss their religions.  Mombasa is about 50% Christian and 50% Muslim, but there appears to be little tension between the religions.  And men in particular seem amazingly proud of their religions.  Most men I meet seem to bring religion into the conversation within the first 20 minutes – not in a way that makes you feel like they’re trying to convert me, but rather as an acknowledgment of the importance of religion to them.

Some, such as Joshua (the Camara driver in Mombasa) are exceptional cases – Joshua is a Pentecostal preacher, whose church we are going to attend on Sunday.  But most are average men – some students, some in employment, some volunteering with Camara while they look for work.  Interestingly, the Muslim men I have met seem to have a fairly moderate version of their religions.  While women wear headscarves, none of the Irish women who are training have felt any discomfort in not adopting this dress-code.  And there’s no segregation of classes etc. on gender grounds.  In contrast to this moderation, the Christian men I have encountered seem to hold a much more radical version of their religions than those to which we would be accustomed.  For example, Joshua will perform ‘deliverances’ as part of his service on Sunday, and avoids all contact with pubs and other places of sin.  And he’s not highly unusual in that regard.  Alcohol doesn’t seem to be consumed by a very large number of men – both Muslim and Christian, on the grounds that consuming it is sinful.

Of course, all of the above are the observations of a Msungu – as a white man who doesn’t speak Swahili, I’m sure there’s an awful lot I’m missing.  But they’re my initial observations on the men in Mombasa…

Bookmark and Share

Posted in Personal. Tagged with , , , , , .

Our group blog in Kenya

Just a quick note – I’ll be dropping the odd observation/post up here while I’m in Kenya, but I’m also posting on a group blog we have created for the whole Camara team in Kenya this August.

You can find us at: http://camarakenya10.wordpress.com

Do pop by and say hello :)

Bookmark and Share

Posted in Personal. Tagged with , , , .

The first three days in Kenya

As I sit typing this, I’m struggling to believe it’s only been just over 2 days since I arrived in Kenya.  Already, I’ve built up a good few pints worth of stories which I’ll be telling over pints for a good while to come!

I arrived on Sunday at about 2pm local time – more or less 24 hours after leaving Dublin.  As journeys go, it was a lot longer than average, and slightly more frustrating than average, but overall, a lot better than it could have been.  We were picked up at the airport by Daudi (CEO of Camara Kenya), Ali (Tech Director of Camara Kenya), Margaret (an Irish woman working for VMM as the M&E Co-ordinator for Camara Africa) and Joshua, who drives the Camara Kenya van, and happens to also be a rather passionate Pentecostal preacher!  A great welcoming committee, and they couldn’t have made us feel more welcome within just a few minutes.

Fast forward two days, and I’m sitting in the Mombasa hub at 7pm – it’s amazing that the hub is still a hive of activity, given that most of the (unpaid) local volunteers who are working here started at about 7am this morning.  The passion and commitment clearly evident within the volunteers is nothing short of inspiring.

In the meantime, there have been meetings with Opus Dei-funded organisations, a stroll past three camels on the street, a couple of beers with a Mombasa man in love with an Irish woman, more monkeys than I could shake a stick at, my first taste of apple mangoes, the scheduling of all of the work to be carried out by our team over the next month, the sight of a Maasai man in traditional dress getting very, very drunk, a visit to a school which has received computers from Camara here in Mombasa, many discussions about the work carried out by Camara, not to mention some of the most exhilarating experiences of public transport one is ever likely to encounter.

This is  a brief post, as much to get me thinking about what has gone on, as to inform others of it.  More quality will follow in the next few days after I get a little more sleep….

Bookmark and Share

Posted in Personal. Tagged with , , , .

My Kenyan adventure

Posts will probably be even more scarce than normal around here over the next couple of months, as I’ll be in Kenya from 24th July until 5th September or so.

I light of that, I thought I should scribble something down about what I’ll be doing, particularly given that so many people donated so very generously to my fundraising efforts.

On Saturday week, I’ll fly (via both London and Addis Ababa) to Mombasa, Kenya.  I’ll be volunteering there with an Irish charity called Camara.  Camara take used computers from companies and individuals in Ireland, refurbish and wipe them in their workshop in the Digital Hub, before shipping them to local social enterprises in several east African countries.  These social enterprises then provide the computers to schools in their catchment area.  The Camara hub in Mombasa has to date provided computers to over 100 schools in Kenya.

The second part of Camara’s work is where I come in.  Each year, a team of Camara volunteers travel to the countries where we have established hubs.  Our role is to provide education to local Camara volunteers and to local teachers, who will in turn pass on this education to other trainers, or indeed use their new-found skills in the classroom.  I’ll be working as a Team Co-ordinator – probably not doing all that much teaching myself, but travelling ahead of the rest of the team to ensure that the set-up is as required in training venues, to ensure that there’s a full teaching schedule for our time in Kenya, and to ensure that we have safe and secure accomodation for all our volunteers.  In addition to that, I’ll be trying to support the members of the team as much as possible, to allow them to provide the education that is in such demand.

We’ll stay in Mombasa for a couple of weeks, before travelling to Lamu and Malindi.  We’ll be providing a range of training courses including: basic IT skills, network administration, Moodle administration, Linux administration and Web design.  We have a great group – 12 of us in all, and I’m beyond excited at this point.

It’ll be slightly weird heading off for such a time – I’ve never actually left home for more than a month before.  And I’ll miss some people terribly.  My terrible twin, my two mid-week sneaky pint buddies, my sensible love, my new boy, family, work buddies, old friends.  Don’t get me wrong – I’m a big boy, and quite like escaping from the world from time to time.  Still, it weighs me down a little to imagine not seeing my favourite people for six weeks or more.

I’m almost ready to go now though – got medical permission to travel today, along with filling my prescription.  Vaccines were sorted a couple of weeks ago, and I’ll get my Kenyan visa sorted on Monday.  Most of the group have their lesson plans done now, and I’ll finally get to chat to our local guys in Kenya on skype next week.  Pen-knife, torch, mosquito repellent, decent sunglasses, sandals, surge protectors and suitable reading materials have all been chosen.  I’ve gotten as far ahead of college work as I can before I leave.  And I’m nailing down the last few bits of work before I leave.  Hopefully, most of next week will be spent finalising details, and spending as much time as possible with my very favourite people.

Oh, and I have a week of holidays at the end of the trip during which I’m thinking about travelling to Ethiopia.  I should also investigate that a little more…

I’ll be trying to post from Kenya, but I’m unsure as of yet as to what the internet situation will be.  If I do get access though, do feel free to say hello to me at neilpward on skype – I might need chats from home to cheer me up from time to time!

Bookmark and Share

Posted in Personal. Tagged with , , , , , .

On the role of the USA

Another in the series of essays I’m doing for my Open University course….


Assess contending views about the major challenges facing the USA as a unique power in the contemporary international order.


In order to provide the required assessment of the obstacles faced by the USA in contemporary times, we must answer two fundamental questions within this essay.  To begin with, this essay will examine the current role of the USA in the modern world order.  Secondly, we will investigate the current challenges confronting the USA within that role.  In order to answer both of these questions, we will make use of the realist; English school; Marxist; and liberal internationalism; views of the role of the USA, and the challenges it currently faces.

Prior to these investigations and analyses, we must briefly explain what we mean by the use of the terms Realist, English (or Liberal Realism), Marxist and Liberal Internationalism schools within International Relations theory.  Realism is a term often used interchangeably with the term ‘power politics’.  It is a school of international thought that asserts that the states-system is anarchic, with relationships between states based on the power dynamics between them, which in turn are based on fundamental aspects of human nature (Baylis & Smith [Eds.], 2004, pg.95).  The English school of thought agrees with the assessment of the states-system as an anarchic system, but contends order arises from co-ordinating interactions to mutual advantage (Brown [Ed.], 2009, pg. 55).  Marxist views assert that international power and interdependence are shaped by the uneven development of capitalist economies, and that it is the critique of capitalism that should shape future international development. (Brown [Ed.], 2009, pg. 55-63)  Finally, the liberal viewpoint contends that international order arises from large absolute gains, but also that international order is shaped by economic actors as much as political actors. (Brown [Ed.], 2009, pg. 55)

Having elaborated on what we mean by the terms Realist, English, Marxist and Liberal schools in this context, we must now move to examine the current role of the USA in the modern world order.  Two interlinked notions of the role of the USA are worthy of consideration within this essay – that of the USA as a world leader, and that of the USA as a transformative force in the modern international order.

Francis Fukuyama’s now-infamous quote about the ‘end of history’ has formed the backbone of a running narrative which has asserted the primacy of the liberal order in the modern states-system since the demise of the USSR (Brown et al [Eds.], 2004, pg. 108).  This narrative has consistently reinforced the role of the USA as a world leader within that liberal order.  A Marxist analysis would suggest that this role has been achieved through the dominance of US economic and military powers, and through the use of mechanisms such as the Bretton-Woods Institutions – notably the IMF and the World Bank.  The liberal analysis is somewhat less relevant when analysing a liberal order, but would suggest that the spread of liberal capitalism has been a positive-sum game in which all capitalistic countries have benefitted from the American role in spreading Americanism.  The English school analysis would suggest that the role of the USA was vital in co-ordinating interactions with post-Soviet states after the collapse of the USSR which led to positive-sum outcomes for the development of capitalism in those countries, but also that relationships of dependence on the USA were formed as a result, cementing the position of the USA as a world leader.  Finally, a realist analysis would highlight the role of American control of military organisations such as NATO and the United Nations Security Council in cementing this liberal order.

The second notion of the role of the USA in the modern world order is the notion of the USA playing a transformative role within the world.  This notion is largely based on the US model of exceptionalism or Americanism – the idea that the US national interest is “simultaneously unique and universal” (Brown [Ed.], 2009, pg. 59).  As this essay will later expand upon, the spread of this model is generally classified as American imperialism within a Marxist analysis, critiquing the tendency to expand into pre-capitalist regions by force, and to employ coercion to organise political relations between regions of differing power (Brown [Ed.], 2009, pg. 62).  However, the liberal analysis, within which nation states are local guardians of commercial activity (Brown et al [Eds.], 2004, pg. 110), is one which has benefited greatly from the spread of Americanism (which will be expanded upon later in the essay), as liberalism as a political ideology found itself at the centre of the exceptionalist approach.  The realist analysis would suggest that the USA could make greater use of their global economic and military power to continue the Americanisation of the international order by seeking the increasing liberalisation of the EU, China and India, as well as the developing world.  A maintenance of realist assumptions can also be found in distinctly non-Americanisation developments such as the growth of the United Nations, where the retention of vetoes by five countries remains a significant nod to the importance to the international order of ‘power politics’ (Brown at al [Eds.], 2004, pg. 111).  Finally, the English school analysis lends itself to the positive-sum outcomes of the spread of the liberal order, with the interdependence of the USA and EU in trade terms an excellent example of the co-ordinated interactions encouraged by this analysis.

Having set-out what we mean by the terms realist, English school, Marxist and liberal, and analysed the current role of the USA within the world order, we must now turn our attention to the current challenges facing the USA within their role as a unique power in the contemporary international order.

It is the contention of this essay that there are three main challenges faced by the USA currently: a limitation on their room for action, the current crisis in capitalism, and inter-imperialist rivalries.  These three challenges each represent individual challenges to the ongoing role of the USA as a unique power, but combined represent the most serious threat to that role they have faced since the end of World War II.

In the aftermath of his inauguration, President Obama has been faced by major limitations on the room for the USA to act in two major directions.  Firstly, the transatlantic challenge to the economic dominance of the USA represents a limitation on their ability to use their economic power in order to dominate the international order. Secondly, questions about the use of military power against countries outside the liberal world (in particular in Afghanistan and Iraq) have diminished the ability of the USA to continue using their military capacity in this manner.  The actions of the USA in relation to both of these areas were entirely appropriate within the realist analysis, but without risking further diminution of their status (or use of military force), it would be impossible to consider continuing with a realist strategy.  The transatlantic challenge to US economic dominance has highlighted the paradox of the long-held US position of pushing capitalist economic development abroad, but also being challenged by such development.  However, both the liberal and English school analyses would welcome this development as an outcome of their positive-sum approaches, and would favour continuation of policies which push capitalistic economic development in non-liberal countries.  It is the Marxist analysis which is of most use to us in analysing the new limitations on the room for the USA to act.  This analysis would state that US dominance on the international world order has been completely dependent on the growth of capitalism, and that the nature of capitalism is such that it will always stimulate competition between capitalist states.

The second challenge faced by the USA in relation to their current role is the current crisis of capitalism.  As noted above, the spread of Americanism, by which we mean the “combination of mass production, a culture of mass consumption and the mass consumption of culture” ((Brown [Ed.] 2009, pg. 59) was transferable within other capitalistic countries.  As stated by Bright and Meyer, “…its emphasis on material progress and democracy, proved extraordinarily attractive” (Bright and Meyer, 2002, p. 86).  The downside of this spread of exceptionalism is now apparent, as the crisis of capitalism is viewed as one created in America.  The liberal acceptance of the role of the USA as a transformative force in capitalistic development around the world underlined the idea that this was a particularly American project, bringing into question for the first time the role of the USA as “hegemon in relation to the other liberal states” (Brown [Ed.], 2009, pg. 69).  This factor, combined with the impact of the crisis on the US domestic economy, as well as the growth of non-liberal models such as Russia and China serves as a particular challenge to the role of the US as a unique power in the contemporary world order.  From a realist perspective, the fact that the crisis of capitalism has become a negative-sum game indicates that the power exerted by US dominance of global capitalism has now become a liability to their stance within the international world order.

The third major challenge to the role of the USA is one which emerges quite clearly from the Marxist analysis.  The idea of inter-imperialist rivalry is usually a negative-sum game, referring to the escalation of competition between capitalist enterprises of different nationalities to political competition between states seeking to defend their interests (Brown [Ed.], 2009, pg. 63).  In the case of the USA, the potential for inter-imperialist rivalries injurious to their interests and world role are exacerbated by a paradox within their domestic and international models.  Domestically, it is clear that the USA has promoted a liberal economic agenda throughout the world since the end of World War II, encapsulated in the approach of the Bretton-Woods Institutions.  This is most obvious when viewing the conditionality of third-world aid, but is also apparent in the use of Marshall Aid in European states in the aftermath of the Second World War.  This agenda stands in direct contradiction to the protectionist policies which have been adopted domestically.  While these contradictory approaches have served the domestic US economy well over the last 50 years, it is clear that they have created a space within which the Leninist idea of inter-imperialist rivalry could flourish.  As discussed above, the ability of the USA to use a realist analysis to confront growing potential hegemons such as China has been limited in recent years, and it is also dubious whether such confrontation could be successful.

This essay has not sought to provide judgement on the values of the differing analyses of realism, liberalism, Marxism and English school thought in relation to the challenges facing the USA as a unique power in the contemporary international order.  However, we have sought to provide working definitions of these four strains of thought.  Furthermore, we have examined the two interlinked notions of the role of the USA in the modern world order using the tools provided by these analyses – the notions of leadership and transformative power.  Finally, we have explored the three major challenges to these roles faced by the USA within these critiques – the challenges of limited ability in light of recent international reputational damage, the challenges of the current crisis of capitalism, and the challenges of inter-imperialist rivalries.  It is the assertion of this essay that all four analyses provide us with tools with which we can assess the role and challenges facing the USA.

References:

Baylis, J & Smith, S (Eds.) (3rd Ed.), 2004, The globalization of world politics, USA: Oxford University Press.

Brown, W (Ed.) 2009, Reordering the International, Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Brown, W, Bromley, S & Athreye, S (Eds.) 2004, Ordering the International, London: Pluto Press/The Open University.

Bright, C & Mayer, M, 2002, Where in the world is America? The history of the USA in the global age in Bender, T (Ed.), 2002, Rethinking American History in a Global Age, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bookmark and Share

Posted in Politics. Tagged with , , .

Civil Partnership Bill passing through Dáil Éireann

July 1st, 2010.  A momentous day for Ireland, and one that will be remembered in history for a long time to come.  Not as momentous as July 7th, 1993 perhaps, but astonishing that we’ve reached this point just 17 years after Mary Robinson signed into law the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

Today, July 1st, 2010, Dáil Éireann will pass the Civil Partnership Bill 2009.  Once it gets through the Seanad (which will happen, though I suspect it’ll get ugly), same-sex couples will be recognised by the state at last.  It’s not marriage, but it’s certainly progress.

I have a long history with this issue, and one I’m particularly proud of.  The Labour Party introduced the Civil Unions Bill in 2006.  In the few months leading up to that, I was a member of the Labour LGBT executive which decided they were in support of such legislation, and I played a small role in bringing LGBT groups in to discuss the draft legislation with the Labour Party legal advisor, and with Brendan Howlin – the sponsor of the Bill.  My role was not enormous – I did not draft the legislation, nor was I centrally involved in persuading Brendan Howlin to work on this area – he took that initiative all by himself.  Nevertheless, it is one of my times in politics that I am most proud of, and it was certainly one of the first times that I became aware that Ireland could be made a better place by the actions of a very small number of people.

It’s been a few years since that flurry of activity.  In the meantime, the Labour Party have reintroduced our bill twice, only for it to be voted down by the Government.  I’ve been involved with both Dublin Pride and the NLGF – both of which have taken staunchly pro-marriage, anti-partnership positions.  And yet, I’ve still waited and waited for this day, conscious of the breakthrough which it will come to represent.

I should probably provide some context for my own views.  Theoretically, academically, I am opposed to the institution of marriage, and indeed to derivatives of that institution such as Civil Partnerships.  It is a patriarchal institution which has been used to subjugate women for hundreds of years.  And regardless of the growth of civil marriage, it remains an institution derived from a sacrament in which I do not believe.  I believe society should seek to move beyond marriage – to dismantle the rights and responsibilities of that institution, and to recognise that increasing numbers of relationships do not fit within the model of the nuclear family.  Some relationships last for a long time, and some do not.  Some relationships consist of two people, and some do not.  Some relationships involve children, and some do not.  And some relationships involve sex, and some do not.  One model will never work for all these different types of relationships, and we should consider how rights and responsibilities could be accumulated within relationships as they evolve, rather than being dependent on one ceremony.  Theoretically, academically, these are my views.

Emotionally however, I sit in a very different space.  As I am yet again experiencing, new romance in my life fills me with emotional possibilities, and the attractions of monogamous, long-term relationships begin to appeal to me once more.  But as well as hope such as this, it angers me that society views the relationships of my friends as less than the relationship of my parents.  I want queers who want to marry to be allowed to marry.  And beyond that, I want them to feel safe walking down the street holding hands.  Or to raise their children without judgement.

And so I’m conflicted.  I want to make the radical argument against the institution of marriage.  But I want the loving relationships I see all around me to receive the respect they deserve.  And that can only happen when society embraces empowering structural change.

Tonight will see our society, through the democratically elected representatives of the people, embrace exactly that type of structural change.  If Fine Gael come onside, it is possible that as in 1993, all members of Dáil Éireann will come together to take a stand for progress.  The Green Party deserve enormous credit.  Enormous credit.  As the Labour Party were responsible for pushing Máire Geoghegan-Quinn to decrimilaise homosexuality, so the Green Party have taken this fight and forced Fianna Fáil to accept it.  Their role should not be undermined, and it will certainly not be forgotten.

In six months time, same-sex couples will be having Civil Partnership ceremonies to rival the most gaudy wedding.  Their engagements will become commonplace in the Irish Times.  And most of all, society will have shifted to recognising same-sex relationships instead of ignoring them.  The campaign for access to civil marriage for same-sex couples will continue, and that’s a good thing.  The campaign for same-sex couples to be treated equally in relationship to adoption will certainly gather pace.  And some of us will continue to make our arguments for a different way of recognising love.  But we’ll all be doing it from a better, more equal starting point.

That’s progress, and it’s been a privilege playing a tiny part in it.

Bookmark and Share

Posted in Politics, Queer stuff. Tagged with , , , , .

Impact of aid policies and economic conditions on the autonomy of African states

This essay was written in response to the below question, again as part of my course with the Open University.  Not the best marks in the world, but I did enjoy teasing the subject a little:

In what ways and to what extent have changes in aid policies and in world economic conditions in the first decade of the twenty-first century increased the autonomy of African states in macroeconomic policy formation?

In answering the above question, we must begin by explaining what we mean when we discuss the autonomy of African states in the development of macroeconomic policy.  We must then examine the changes that have occurred in relation to aid policies over the last decade.  In addition to this, we must explore the changes that have occurred in world economic conditions during the same period, and examine how they have impacted aid dependency.  During all of this, we will analyse how these changes have altered the autonomy of African states in relation to the formation of macroeconomic policy.  This will be done with particular regard to the national income accounting framework, and with a particular focus on the economy of Tanzania.

It is the assertion of this essay that when we examine the development of aid policies, it will become clear that they have served to limit the autonomy of African states in the development of macroeconomic policy.  However, it will become equally clear that the development of world economic conditions over the last ten years has served to greatly enhance the autonomy of African states in macroeconomic policy formation.

As stated above, we must begin by elaborating on what we mean by discussing the autonomy of African states in this context.  As the African states began to achieve independence, their first priority was to assert their sovereignty, by which we mean an assertion of a claim to right to rule their countries independently. With sovereignty asserted, we saw the rise of development economics in the 1960s, with African states beginning to focus on the development of macroeconomic policies.  This was achieved through the introduction of macroeconomic government departments.  These departments often focussed on the development of policies to encourage savings or investment, with an awareness of the extreme importance of these areas on the national income accounting framework.

Achieving autonomy, by which we mean not only an assertion of the right to rule, but also an assertion of the ability to rule their countries independently, has been restrained over the last 50 years in two primary ways – external political pressures, and economic constraints.  After the development of African countries in the 1960s (a natural result of their new-found independence), the 1970s and early 1980s saw a crisis period in the African states.  Instead of moving towards restructuring their economies to reduce dependence on declining trade of primary commodities, most African states (under pressure from the IMF and World Bank) engaged in a rapid period of ‘temporary’ external borrowing to fund this decline.  The withdrawal of such external borrowing facilities after the Mexican debt crisis in 1981, saw the African states become more dependent on funding from the BWI (Bretton Woods Institutions), increasing the political pressure these institutions could exert on Sub-Saharan Africa. 

The adjustment years (from 1982 to the mid-1990s), then saw a substantial diminution of the macroeconomic autonomy of African states, as the BWI institutions exerted their dramatically increased influence to force African countries to embark on wide-scale programmes of privatisation and stabilisation, moving further away from the developmentalist model which had proved so successful for African states in the 1960s.  Using the example of Tanzania, we can examine some practical impacts of this move away from the developmentalist model.  In 1987, Public consumption and Investment in relation to output accounted for 39% of GDP, but these sectors accounted for only 23.3% of GDP by 2001, showing a substantial reduction in the size of the institutions of the state.

The even more obvious result of the move away from the developmentalist model can be found in the failure of the structural adjustments in Tanzania to address the economic structures of the country.  In this regard, the Berg report was particularly damaging, pushing as it did an agriculture-led development, which failed to address the need for the Tanzanian economy to expand into other sectors.  To state that more explicitly, the aim of the Berg report was to rely on the improvements to the traditional agricultural export sector to raise entire economy, instead of recognising that diversifying and developing in non-traditional sectors could potentially realise significantly greater rewards.

The period since 1995 has recently been written about as the ‘recovery period’, though this label is often accompanied by a question mark.  While external institutions have grudgingly admitted that the state may have a larger role to play in the development of African states through the agreement of the ‘Millenium Development Goals’, the end of the 20th Century saw a lot of questions about the willingness of external actors and economic pressures to allow African states return to a greater level of autonomy over their macroeconomic policy formation.

Having explained what we mean when we discuss autonomy in this context, we must next examine the changes to aid policies which have occurred over the last ten years.  There are two particularly significant developments which have altered the development of aid policies over that period.  Firslty, through the establishment of NEPAD (New Economic Partnership for African Development) in 2001, African states have begun to embrace liberalisation.  By agreeing to move towards democracy, and improve governance standards, the African states hoped to attract increased aid.

The second, and arguably more significant development was the G8 deal agreed in Gleneagles, Scotland in 2005.  This agreement recognised the steps towards liberalisation taken by the African states through the establishment of NEPAD, and saw the G8 (a group comprising the UK, USA, Russia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and Italy, with representation from the EU) agree to cancel the debt of the 43 poorest countries in the world, dramatically increase aid to African states, and lift trading blocks (including export subsidies and import restrictions).

The net effect of these developments in aid policy was a substantial increase in aid pledges.  However, as figure 1 below shows, the G8 are currently substantially underperforming in relation to the commitments to increase aid to African states made at the Gleneagles summit.

Increases in ODA from G8 countries compared to Gleneagles commitments.

Despite this underperformance amongst the G8 countries, OECD aid to African states has certainly risen over the last ten years.  As figure 2 below shows, official aid flows had fallen during the 1990s, as countries such as Tanzania saw a rise in the % of GDP held in national savings, along with corresponding reductions in the size of their trade gaps.  However, as we can clearly see from figure 2, aid has grown erratically over the last decade, demanding a greater insight into the reasons for the continuing failure to narrow the trade gap in these developing countries.

Private Giving, Philanthropic and Remittance Flows from OECD Countries 1991-2007.

Arguably, the liberalisation of the economies of African states, intended to attract significantly greater aid donations, has not achieved this impact.  Instead, the adoption of these liberal economic policies have seen private investment rise substantially in African countries.  However, this argument will be explored in more depth in the next section of this essay.  It is in examining the aid flows to individual countries that we can draw a better understanding of the development of aid dependency.  Again, this is a point that will be returned to subsequently.

It is clear that aid policies over the last decade have been predicated on the willingness of African states, through institutions such as NEPAD, to continue the liberalisation of their economies.  While rhetorically, the developed world has been moving away from conditionality, it is clear that the only moves towards debt relief and increased aid come in the aftermath of African liberalisation.  Thus, we can clearly conclude that aid policies have served to limit the increased autonomy of African states on the development of their own macroeconomic policies.

Having elaborated on what we mean by autonomy in this context, and briefly explored the development of aid policies over the last decade, we must now turn our attentions to an examination of the development of world economic conditions over the last decade, and their effect on aid dependency.

The first decade of the 21st Century has, generally speaking, been a decade of world economic growth.  The rise of China, India and other emerging markets such as Brazil as rapidly developing nations has led to a decade of prosperity.  However, within the last 24 months, it has become apparent that much of the growth of the last decade was unsustainable, and largely speculative.  That has led to a global recession, with developed countries such as Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal looking increasingly at risk of defaulting on national debt.

Africa has largely followed the growth trends of the rest of the world during that period.  This is indicated by the substantial increase in Foreign Direct Investment to Sub-Saharan Africa during the period 2000-2008.  However, despite the rapid growth of FDI into Africa during this period, it becomes clear through an examination of figure 3 below that the vast majority of this FDI was directed to oil-producing and middle-income countries.  This serves to highlight the income differentiation within African countries, a factor often ignored by examining general Sub-Saharan trends.

Foreign Direct Investment in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2000-2008

Using the Tanzanian model once more, it was only at the very end of the 1990s that the state finally moved away from their enormous dependence on the traditional agricultural sector, and this saw enormous growth in the value of mineral exports at the start of this decade, rising to 39% of all exports by 2002.  Equally, a focus on export of services (primarily tourism) saw that sector leap to approximately 45% of all exports by the millennium.  And yet, the terms of trade have weakened so significantly, the growth rates of the Tanzanian economy have been greatly restricted.  These developments have occurred at the very time at which FDI in Africa was beginning to rise.  While not conclusive, we can derive from this with some probability, that the rise in FDI led Tanzania to a position where it could more easily diversify it’s economy.

The impact of the global economic recession was also strongly felt in Africa, with FDI falling rapidly over the last two years, as remittances and aid remained rose only moderately during the same period.

Again, we can get a little more insight on developments over the last 30 years through an examination of one economy as an example of aid dependency.  Again, using the example of Tanzania, we can see that the trade gap rose from under 5% in 1975 to almost 15% in the late 1990s, before falling again to under 10% in 2001.  The implication from this is that the reliance on foreign aid (given the relatively modest size of domestic savings in the Tanzanian economy) rose dramatically between 1975 and the 1990s, before falling back a little towards the start of the 21st Century.  Given the rise in Foreign Direct Investment in the first decade of this Century, we can assume that aid dependency has continued to reduce in the last decade, though the Tanzanian state will require a marked reduction in their trade gap, in order to reassert complete autonomy on their macroeconomic policy formulation.

The overall impact on Sub-Saharan Africa over the last decade was a reduction in the dependency on aid from the period 2000-2008, as the liberalisation of the African states under NEPAD drove increases in Foreign Direct Investment, without achieving the intended substantial increases in aid.  However, the last two years have marked a notable increase in aid dependency, as Foreign Direct Investment has actually fallen within Africa during this period.

This essay has set out quite clearly the development of macroeconomic policy autonomy over the last 50 years, noting that the African states retained most autonomy over their macroeconomic policy formulation during the development period of the late 1960s and early 1970s.  We also examined the impact of aid policies on this autonomy, showing that while the rhetoric of ending conditionality has implied greater autonomy for African states, this rhetoric has occurred at a time in which African states are still being coerced towards greater liberalisation of their markets in return for increases in aid or debt relief.  This liberalisation then appears to have been ‘rewarded’, through a dramatic increase in Foreign Direct Investment, reducing the aid dependency of the African states, but doing so without addressing the trade deficits of Sub-Saharan Africa.

It is clear from this analysis that aid policies have only served to limit the autonomy of African states in macroeconomic policy formation.  However, world economic conditions over the last ten years have benefitted African autonomy greatly, as substantially increased Foreign Direct Investment combined with marginally increased aid budgets and remittances have allowed countries such as Tanzania to diversify their exports, allowing them to tackle the structural issues which have historically prevented them from closing their trade gaps.  The most significant problem with this increase in autonomy is that it has only been achieved through a reduction in sovereignty in the hope of achieving increased aid.  It is only when African states can achieve increased aid and debt relief, without macroeconomic conditionality, that this autonomy will be able to grow to a point where Sub-Saharan Africa can genuinely asset their autonomy on the development of macreconomic policy.

Bookmark and Share

Posted in Politics. Tagged with , , , , .

Discuss the impact of economic liberalisation on economic growth in developing countries.

The below is an essay I completed last week as part of the module ‘A world of whose making?’ I’m studying with the Open University.  Amazingly, I thought it was shite, but I got very nice marks for it :)


In constructing an analysis of the impact of economic liberalisation on economic growth in developing countries, there are three key areas which must be explored.  Firstly, we must analyse the sources of growth in developing countries, in order to clearly define how economic growth occurs.  Secondly, we must explore how economic liberalisation has taken place in a developing economy.  And finally, we must compare these two in order to arrive at conclusions on how the process of liberalisation impacts on economic growth in developing nations.

This essay seeks to explore these two areas by examining the economic growth and liberalisation of Mexico.  I will argue that economic liberalisation has had a negative impact on the growth if the Mexican economy.

In the period between 1940 and 1965, the Mexican economy was based on a protectionist model.  By imposing high tariffs on certain classes of imports, the Mexican government sought to achieve two goals.  Firstly, by imposing high tariffs on the import of food sources such as corn, the Mexican government sought to preserve the high levels of employment which existed in the agricultural sector.  Secondly, by imposing high tariffs on the import of consumables, but not on the import of equipment used in the manufacturing of consumables, the government sought to stimulate the manufacturing industry in Mexico, and increase the value of national exports.

During this 25 year period, the protectionist model proved very successful basis for economic growth in the Mexican economy, as an average growth rate of 6.3% in real terms was achieved during this period.

In addition to the protectionist system operated by government policy, the other significant policy which assisted with Mexican economic growth during this time was the corporatist relationship which existed between government and the trade union movement.  By co-ordinating and agreeing responses on Labour issues with the trade union movement, workers were able to secure reasonable minimum wages, 8-hour working days and a number of other labour market controls.

In the early 1980s, the Mexican government quickly began to liberalise the economy, seeking to increase the economic growth of the nation.  In 1984, the Government lifted the restrictions on Foreign Direct Investment, allowing mostly US companies to began to expand into Mexico.  This would test the corporatist relationship between the state and the trade union movement, as companies sought to reduce the minimum wages which were in operation in Mexico.

The process of liberalisation was rapidly expanded in 1986 and 1987, through the reduction on tariffs imposed on the import of certain categories of goods.  In 1986, the maximum tariff stood at 100%, but this was quickly reduced to 20% by the following year.  The impact of these changes were to have a startling impact on the Mexican economy.  The lifting of prohibitive tariffs on agricultural goods, for example, would lead to an enormous reduction in the numbers of people employed in the agricultural sector.  Examining corn as one example of this change, the reduced tariffs allowed US corn-growers (who were in receipt of subsidies from the US state) to export corn to the Mexican market at lower prices than local corn, decimating the market for local corn.  The damage to the Mexican agricultural sector was exacerbated by the failure of the Mexican government to take advantage of the 15-year transitional agreements contained within NAFTA.

In 1990, 8.2 million people were employed in the Mexican agriculture sector.  However, after the implementation of NAFTA, this figure fell rapidly, reaching a low of 7.1 million people by 2000.

As the liberalisation of the Mexican economy continued, pressure mounted on the corporatist relationship which existed between the state and the trade union movement.  As Foreign Direct Investment grew, the interests of the companies investing in the Mexican economy quickly came into conflict with the interests of the members represented by trade unions.  In the face of this, the trade union movement continued to negotiate for security of employment with the state, allowing in return the reduction of wages in swathes of the country.  However, in the malaquidoras, even this was beyond the reach of the trade union movement, and wages have consistently fallen, while employment has become more and more precarious.  In the face of this, trade union membership rates have fallen to 10% of the population by 2000.

As a final example of the liberalisation of the Mexican economy, we can examine the number of state-owned firms which existed in Mexico during this period of liberalisation.  In 1982, this number stood at 1,155, as huge areas of the Mexican economy remained under state control.  However, by 1992, this number had been reduced to 232.  While no figures are available on employment in these companies during this time, it can certainly be concluded that this move, combined with the lifting of restrictions on Foreign Direct Investment, led to the export of profits from many of these industries, depriving the Mexican economy of further stimulus.

Having examined the growth of the Mexican economy, and the steps taken to liberalise the economy, we must finally look at the impact of this liberalisation on the economic growth of this developing country.

Firstly, the liberalisation of the Mexican economy has seen an enormous migration of the population, both from rural areas towards major urban areas and also out of the state.  As the agricultural sector has rapidly fallen, the employment available in rural areas has dwindled, as referenced above.  In response to this, much of the population has been forced to move towards urban areas in search of employment.  Alternatively, people have chosen to emigrate in search of higher-paid employment.  While this has resulted in significant remittances back into the Mexican economy, it is an outcome that could hardly be classified as either sustainable or desirable.

Secondly, the liberalisation of the economy has seen a substantial reduction in the number of salaried employees in total employment within the state.  What is meant by this is the number of people in receipt of a daily wage.  In 1992, 73.9% of salaried employees were categorised as being in total employment.  However, by 1998, this figure had dropped dramatically to 61.2%.  This shows us, that despite the continuing corporatist relationship between trade unions and the state, the amount of secure, full-time employment has actually dropped.  It is emblematic of falling employment which has seen more and more workers move towards self-employment or into either low-pay or no-pay employment.

The liberalisation of the labour market achieved under NAFTA had a significant impact on employment in Mexico, which has not risen since the accession in 1994.  While employment has risen in some sectors (such as manufacturing), this has been offset by falling employment in agriculture and other industries.  Due to a failure to record employment in rural areas, the exact extent of this is difficult to ascertain.

Finally, and most startlingly, the wages in Mexico have actually fallen in real terms since the liberalisation of the economy began.  During the period between 1990 and 1999, the purchasing power of the minimum wages in Mexico fell by 50%.  This was caused by three factors.  Firstly, the devaluation of the Mexican peso in 1994 dramatically increased the price of imported goods.  Secondly, inflation after the accession to NAFTA rose dramatically.  And finally, due to the control exerted by the Government over the trade union movement, and their willingness to allow wage moderation, wages failed to respond to rising inflation during this period.  The combination of these three factors served to significantly reduce the real wages of Mexican workers.

As outlined above, the protectionist model of governance adopted by the Mexican government prior to liberalisation were largely successful.  While there may have been some difficulties with this model, economic growth was consistently strong, while labour conditions for the Mexican people were solid as a result of the corporatist relationship between the state and the trade union movement.

The move towards liberalisation of the Mexican economy (and most notably the accession to NAFTA) lifted the protectionist restrictions and tariffs which had been in operation during this successful period of growth.  The move towards liberalisation also exposed the difficulties with the corporatist relationship between unions and the government, as this relationship was used to reduce wages and weaken working conditions for the Mexican people.

The impacts of this liberalisation on the economic growth have been surprisingly damaging.  Liberalisation has fatally damaged rural life and employment in Mexico with many rural Mexicans forced to emigrate northwards in search of employment.  It has failed to increase employment rates, has led directly to reductions in the wages of Mexican people, and has led to a reduction in the security of employment of many workers.

It is clear from all of the above that the impact of liberalisation on the economic growth of Mexico as a developing nation has been significantly negative.

Bookmark and Share

Posted in Personal, Politics. Tagged with , , , .

Building a progressive majority

cross-posted from IrishElection.com – unfortunately I spent a week editing this, and fear it lost much of it’s coherence along the way….

I’ve had cause to do a lot of reading recently.  For reasons that are partially related to work, and partially related to some ideas I’ve been tossing around with friends, I’ve spent some time reading about progressive movements in the UK.  The possibility of a hung parliament seems to have created an atmosphere in which people are much more comfortable talking about alliances and coalitions than normal.  While think-tanks (of which we really need more in Ireland) such as Demos and the Fabian Society have been putting considerable effort into bringing in progressive voices from Labour and Lib Dems, and even including ‘progressive Tories’.  The think-tanks have helped strengthen a conversation around progressive stances through their respective blogs – Demos blog and Next LeftLeft Foot Forward have also played a significant role in this conversation.

The conversation has been different in Ireland, but there have been attempts by group blogs such as Irish Left Review and Cedar Lounge Revolution to examine co-operation and sharing of ideas between people of the left.  But both blogs have been plagued at times by comments from readers insisting that one political party is more left than another, or that the Government should simply be branded as evil and stupid while we crouch behind our party identities.

I’m a Labour Party member, supporter, activist and employee, and for that I make no apologies.  Within the Labour Party, I know people who would describe themselves as socialists, social-democrats, liberals, trade unionists, progressives and even centrists.  And there are many who deride my party for the presence of that range of views.  Equally, people of the left love to excoriate the Green Party for the role they are playing in Government at present, just as progressive voices have savaged Sinn Féin for their failures in Government in the North.  On top of that, we have a plethora of community activists in Ireland who remain disdainful of all parties of the left.  I could go on, but my point is that the liberal left in Ireland have fundamentally failed to build a progressive majority.

Will Straw (editor of Left Foot Forward) argues that in the UK, in order to realistically campaign against child poverty or climate change, that:

It makes no sense to appeal solely to the supporters and representatives of one political party – instead we can branch out to like-minded people who have found themselves in a different political tradition or none at all.

Which is certainly a sentiment I agree with.  Many people who have expressed such sentiments in recent times, have gone on to propose a ‘Left Alliance’ of political parties – usually encompassing Labour, Sinn Féin, Green Party, Socialist Party and Socialist Workers’ Party/People Before Profit Alliance.  That argument is a politically useful one for those seeking to attract votes from voters who identify as left-wing (as when Gerry Adams made such an appeal).  However, I believe that the strategy is, at best, one that will achieve success in the very long-term, and at worst, one destined to fail.  In the current Dáil, there are 31 members of the above parties, representing just 19% of the total – by any standards, some distance from a majority.

While I would join those who assert Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to be broadly right-of-centre parties, I do not believe that this label applies to all of their voters, or even to all of their members or public representatives.  And it is the progressives within these parties, and in broader society, who must be appealed to if we are to achieve any real and lasting change.

What I propose is a new intellectual rigour between those of those who identify as progressive.  I think we should come together in groups (be they party-based groups or non-partisan), to develop our thinking – to reevaluate our stances on jobs and employment, energy and security, the ‘national question’, climate change and environmentalism, gender constructs, and a myriad of other topics.  We should put our proposed solutions into the public realm, to be published, adapted or referred to by political and non-political groupings as required.  And we must realise that segmentation and division of the left only makes us weaker – we must focus on positive proposals, and strengthening of ideas, rather than on criticism of politics, and demeaning the efforts of others.

Ideas, not politics, were the foundations of trade unions, progressive political parties, environmentalist and feminist organisations, and community activities.  But it an absence of ideas that now stands between the status quo and a progressive majority.  Criticism of focus groups, professional communications, political polling and electoral strategies will continue, and there are more than enough spaces in all media where such conversations can occur.  But a broadening of the conversational arena is badly needed to allow new ideas to flourish outside such criticism.  Party politics, electoral battles, local differences and battles of spin will also continue.  But a more rigorous expression of progressive ideas such as the dangers of climate change, gay rights, and the right to a minimum wage has acheived success in the past, and can again in the future.

The progressive ideas highlighted above succeeded in building progressive majorities, and I believe that we can build many further such majorities – paving the way towards a progressive electoral majority.  But first we have to build those ideas.

Bookmark and Share

Posted in Politics. Tagged with , , , .