unfortunately, the wiki doesn't say whether the donor nations subscribe to this "theory". i guess france/russia/etc. don't in the case of iraq. unless they've given it up as a loss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odious_debt
"Odious debt, in international law, is a theory that holds that debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the interest of the state should not be enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion."
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat was 10 years ago and we can safely say that Mocumbo's fears were unfounded.
Not everybody has the same view as to what constitutes a success story, as this old article about Mozambique illustrates:
http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=3822
Development in such poor countries MUST necessarily increase inequalities in the early stages. You can't invest everywhere at the same time and obviously the people involved in the initial investments will benefit more than others. Note this doesn't mean that the others do not beneffit either. It also seems to me perfectly normal that initial investments were concentrated on Maputo and therefore benefitted Maputo more. Industrialization is complementary with urban environments, after all.
Here's a study of the post-1997 (it's in English despite the name of the file):
http://www.op.gov.mz/documentos/analise_desigualdades.pdf
This has led to a moderate increase in inequality at the national level, as demonstrated by the rise in the Gini coefficient from 0.40 to 0.42. However, this slight increase in inequality at the national level is not statistically significant
...
Poverty and well-being analyses already undertaken indicate a substantial fall in the poverty headcount from 69.4 percent of the population in 1996–97 to 54.1 percent in 2002–03
...
the use of the entropy class of inequality measures indicates inequality in real consumption between provinces and regions has diminished over time, which is in contrast to many popular claims.
(for entropy class inequality measures (which many consider better than Gini) see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theil_index)
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe issue isn't that simple. Anyone that spends some time in French campagne knows that this subsidies do quite a lot more than that. The villages are beautiful, well-kept and, although slowly aging, are not dying like in many other European countries.
If we stop giving subsidies to farmers who don't produce anything of value (that is, surplus that no one will buy), then we can lower taxes, strengthening the economy.
So I have two questions for you:
1) Are the subsidies essential to keep French rural lifestyle in the current economic paradigm?
2) Does France have the right to preserve such a rural lifestyle?
Note: The question of being EU or nationally funded is a different one, but it's not related with the justification for the existence of these subsidies or not.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI do think there's a place in the world for an institution like the World Bank. It has more political power to force countries to contribute and it also provides contributors with a target for criticism, which creates room for improvement. I prefer that development funds go through an institution that has a face and therefore can also be held responsible for its mistakes.
Very good...
Do you think the World Bank is as bad as it's made out to be? Is it a philanthropic institution whose charity is thrown back in its face? Does it need to exist?
I agree they have their problems and some criticisms are perfectly valid (some are not). But if a tool is broken, you shouldn't just throw it away and work with your bare hands, you should try to fix it.
Same thing for the UN, actually. In a globalised world, we need global institutions which provide a framework for cooperation and dialogue.
Originally posted by PalynkaThat is not a farm subsidy; that's preservation of a national historical landmark.
The issue isn't that simple. Anyone that spends some time in French campagne knows that this subsidies do quite a lot more than that. The villages are beautiful, well-kept and, although slowly aging, are not dying like in many other European countries.
So I have two questions for you:
1) Are the subsidies essential to keep French rural lifestyle i ...[text shortened]... ut it's not related with the justification for the existence of these subsidies or not.
1) I have no idea. If they are, then that lifestyle is obsolete and should be allowed to die.
2) The French people have the right to do anything they want with their money. However I don't think it's practical for them to do so.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's not just a landmark, it's a lifestyle. By definition, rurality NEEDS agriculture. It's insane to believe that rurality can be preserved by preservation funds. You'd be left with empty museum villages.
That is not a farm subsidy; that's preservation of a national historical landmark.
1) I have no idea. If they are, then that lifestyle is obsolete and should be allowed to die.
2) The French people have the right to do anything they want with their money. However I don't think it's practical for them to do so.
1) What if people in urban areas agree with these subsidies? After all, many have houses there and it's much nicer to be in a village that isn't just full of weekenders and tourists. It also provides a better possibility for aging people to have a small economic activity in retirement, decongest (does this word exist?) cities and provide better local products.
Originally posted by PalynkaIt seems to have a stabilising effect on the economy as a whole. I wonder if similar policies could be applied in African countries to give people an incentive not to migrate to cities en masse.
It's not just a landmark, it's a lifestyle. By definition, rurality NEEDS agriculture. It's insane to believe that rurality can be preserved by preservation funds. You'd be left with empty museum villages.
2 edits
Originally posted by Palynka1) It's a lifestyle that depends on handouts and which will never change to a practical lifestyle for the people involved - the opposite in fact, since the objective is to maintain the lifestyle. Pretty pathetic IMO, but the French can give welfare to whoever they want.
It's not just a landmark, it's a lifestyle. By definition, rurality NEEDS agriculture. It's insane to believe that rurality can be preserved by preservation funds. You'd be left with empty museum villages.
1) What if people in urban areas agree with these subsidies? After all, many have houses there and it's much nicer to be in a village that isn't just f ...[text shortened]... in retirement, decongest (does this word exist?) cities and provide better local products.
2) Like I wrote, the French can subsidize anyone they want, but I think it's impractical. They can also hire "friendly neighbors" if they want - and you imply that's what they're doing. If that's how they want to spend their money, I hope it works out for them. I wouldn't support this sort of spending of my tax money though.
I suppose these people are entertainers of a sort, but paid by the state instead of by the individual fans.