“Development,” I’ve discovered, operates as a flagrantly racist discourse in some guises. Scrambling to explain the reasons for Africa’s perpetual poverty and apparently incurable misery, laypersons in the West point to Africans’ “savagery” and alleged incapacity for civilisation. This is not just a fringe opinion; even among putatively educated individuals such nonsense recurs with disturbing frequency.
In an attempt to defend Africa and Africans against the cancerous ignorance that this model propagates, a collection of more thoughtful academics and development theorists — Jared Diamond and Jeffrey Sachs among them — have proposed an alternative, more liberal-minded approach to understanding Africa’s difficulties. Instead of blaming underdevelopment on the presumed genetic inferiority of black people, they insist instead that we cast our critical gaze to the environmental conditions that Africans inhabit.
This approach, which draws its basic logic from environmental determinism, attempts to explain persistent poverty in Africa as the consequence of material forces outside the realm of human agency that have made it difficult for Africa to develop, suggesting that Africa’s climate, geology, and natural resource portfolio has ultimately determined its economic trajectory. Compared to the racist assumptions that infuse popular pontifications about African underdevelopment, environmental determinism seems like a breath of progressive fresh air. But a closer look shows that it smuggles in a number of insidious claims that connive to direct attention away from the real issues at stake.
But before getting to the critique, let’s deal with the theory on its own terms. Environmental determinism looks as far back into the geological past as the breakup of Gondwana — the ancient super-continent — to show that plate tectonics conspired to grant Africa a coastline with few natural harbors and a gradient too steep to allow easy river transportation, making regional integration difficult. In addition, the relatively older age of Africa’s geological profile means that its top-soils have been weathered to the point of deep depletion, rendering most ecological zones unsuitable for good agriculture.
The notorious Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) also makes a strong appearance in the arguments of environmental determinists. This unique weather pattern pits dry continental winds against wet oceanic winds to create an annual precipitation cycle that oscillates between two dramatically different seasons: rainy and dry. The rainy season is characterised by concentrated downpours, and the dry by often extreme drought. The result: flash floods, cutting erosion, and topsoil degeneration that further militates against sustained agricultural pursuits.
Furthermore, the ITCZ weather pattern produces an environment in which a number of tropical diseases flourish, among them malaria, sleeping sickness, river blindness, and schistosomiasis. As the pathogens responsible for these devastating diseases gravitate toward verdant, well-watered areas, they render some of the otherwise most arable land hostile to human settlement. The two-season weather cycle also militates against settled agriculture in certain regions, necessitating nomadism or regular migrancy to urban centres, rendering peasants vulnerable to the dictates of a violent labor market and creating ideal conditions for HIV transmission.
And so it goes — a litany of arguments that prove that Africa’s problems are not necessarily the fault of Africans, but the inevitable outcome of nature’s capricious designs. But while its observations are not untrue, as a standalone theory of underdevelopment, environmental determinism has some serious limitations.
First, the obvious objections. The correlation between environment and development is indeterminate; there are many regions in the world with hostile geological and climactic characteristics that have nonetheless managed to keep from descending into inveterate poverty. Second, the theory focuses on what Africa lacks rather than what Africa has, that being, among other things, vast natural resource wealth in the form of unprecedented petroleum reserves and mineral deposits (which, incidentally, happen to be a product of Africa’s unique geology). The question should not be what to do in the absence of resources, but how existing resources get used, how they are distributed, and who pockets the profits.
In these terms, it becomes clear that environmental determinism completely elides both history and politics. It elides history by ignoring past European involvement with Africa through the slave trade, colonialism, and resource extraction. It elides politics in that it ignores the present relations of power — African, American, Chinese and European — that continue to develop the continent’s resources in the interests of some while marginalising others, through debt-manipulation, structural adjustment, and neoliberal trade arrangements.
Because environmental determinism posits an ahistorical and apolitical analysis of the problem, it lends itself naturally to solutions that ignore how inequalities have been and continue to be generated out of the capitalist world system. We’re led to believe, for example, that a massive infusion of aid and modern technology to improve agriculture and eliminate disease will help clear the hurdles posed by a hostile natural world and pave the way for development.
This is a very compelling suggestion, of course, as it allows concerned Americans and Europeans to support a solution to the problem of poverty that does not challenge the underpinnings of their class privilege. With an interesting sleight of hand, Western development technocrats manage to shift the blame away from the pathologies of power that lie behind the phenomenon of underdevelopment and toward the natural and politically neutral phenomenon of geology instead. They want us to imagine a world in which their two billion desperately poor neighbors can be raised up to decent middle-class living standards without any restructuring of the capitalist world system and its inherently uneven division of labor, production, consumption, and emission.
Western development technocrats content themselves with ahistorical and apolitical solutions to poverty and underdevelopment in Africa because to tackle the real issues at stake would run up against Western economic interests. It would mean deleting debt, promoting fairer international trade, eliminating agricultural dumping, and requiring multinational corporations to pay living wages. Instead, concerned Westerners want to feel good about helping while still maintaining the system that supports their lifestyles, refusing to face the fact that the wealth and privilege of their nations — and, ironically, the very presence of the surplus that they can dispense so liberally in aid — depend on a system of extraction and exploitation that necessarily generates inequality. As the dependency theorists have so long insisted, the wealth of the West is intimately bound up with the poverty of Africa, and vice versa. Neither our wealth nor their poverty is natural, as the development technocrats seem to suggest. Poverty is not a problem of nature, it’s a problem of power.
Yes, you are of course right.
However, please note that much of the discourse you are talking about, discussing Africa’s problems from an environmental/geographical perspective, appears to be intended to challenge the very real racist stereotyping of Africans as genetically inferior to paler-skinned peoples, and is thus actually (potentially) subversive of that racism which was evolved to legitimate colonialism.
Also, it is worth noting that the European and Asian states evolved high technology and complex, centralised systems earlier than the North and South American and African (south of the Sahara) states did. In other words, who got to oppress and exploit whom was a question of who developed the ability to mobilise oppressive and exploitative power. It is not unreasonable to see this as a product of ecological conditions, rather than because Americans and Africans are less oppressive and exploitative by nature.
Environmental determinism claims the exact opposite, namely that Africa has a tamer climate than harsher, colder climates and thus selection pressure applied less sternly. The lack of development in Africa – according to environmental determinism, at least – would be due to abundance. Survival did not depend on a high degree of development until recently. Differences in races do not suggest ordinal rank nor excuses, but merely indicate adaptation to different environments. Neoliberalism is an example of newspeak and thus a strawman argument as most governments abide by age old mercantilism,crony capitalism or tenderpreneurship. One common thread in underdeveloped African states is a totalitarian government with tight market control
And, er, what causes this ‘problem of power’? Could it have any genetic origin or factor? It certainly is universal.
Too true and the stripping of “third” world countries continues to enriched the already extremely rich. Agricultural independence is removed by supplying GM seed and the poor are kept poor indefinitely, as well as sick, uneducated and undermined.
I understand your point but would have enjoyed more concrete examples to subtantiate your view which (in current form) I almost wholly disagree with (because Im racist, obviously).
The key to poverty reduction in Africa is the same as anywhere else, labour market flexibility, a strong legal and governance framework, hard work, education, centres of excellence, innovation and the subsequent production of goods and services that add value such that the rest of the world want to buy them. These are just some of the basics.
If all your doing is producing raw material without any beneficiation thereafter all that will happen is other nations will buy your product and sell it back to you in the form of something useful and we’ll hear the usual wailing that Africa is being ‘raped’.
Look how places like Brazil, China, India and the Asian “dragons” sorted themselves out if you need any pointers.
These countries all had similar external factors thwarting and frustrating their efforts (countries will always compete with eachother) yet they managed….
There’s a good book called Guns, Germs and Steel which also takes the environmental deterimistic view and makes for compelling reading. But I think whilst that view may hold some water to explain how historically Africa lagged, in this day and age with modern agriculture, proven models of how other nations triumphed and where we are in possesion of all the trump cards as they apply to natural resources there are no real excuses left for Africa.
Environmental determinism is a fallacy, no doubt. Evolution is an undirected process and adaptation is not the only process at play. It should rather be environmental probability or stochastics. The fallacy of the determinism part is it claims that if we had a certain environment, we are guaranteed a certain outcome. Different species (not to mention individuals) adapt to the same environment differently. The converse argument, namely that if we changed our environment to be somehow free of bad Neoliberals and their policies of exploitation, we’d automatically turn into a prosperous continent, is the same argument and likewise spurious. I agree with the author that power – especially centralised overbearing power – is the cause of Africa’s problems. But I disagree that the seat of this power is foreign.
The Creator
I agree with you. In comparing Europe with other continents including how Europe overtook the much older Asian civilisations Dr Walter Rodney in his book “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa” put the greater speed of evolvement of the West’s economic and political systems culminating in capitalism as not only the edge that Europe had but also as a necessitator of colonialism.
Colonialism and European capitalism are not good excuses for ineptitude. Consider Japan and Chile. Both have been through periods of European colonialism (several in Japan’s case), both have been through slavery, both have been through periods of centralised control (several in Chile’s case) just like the majority of Africa. Neither share similar geographical or evolutionary background. Both fared better when power became decentralised. Even under similar and different environments, there are similar and different cases. Too many of them to deduct a general heuristic that merits the blame game. Even if it were apt and the West wrote an unfathomable cheque to Africa, or withdrew from Africa completely, it would not magically solve problems of lack of infrastructure, despotism and skills shortage. Can the situation in Zimbabwe be blamed on colonialism? What about the successful situation in Hong Kong, which also went through European colonialism?
“Poverty is not a problem of nature, it’s a problem of power.”
I do have serious problems with your argument for no other reason than that you have not defined “poverty” in the context of your essay.
I take it that you talk about “poverty” in the economic sense and so you seemingly do with “power”.
Poverty in economic sense has to do with “have” or “have not” while the power refers to the potential to “have more” or have less if this power is not there.
Try to place this in the world of “happiness” or “climate change” or “acceptance” or “spirituality”.
Many of those “attitudes to life” tend to reduce or take the “greed” out of the equation in support of the ruling “live and let live”.
Past tense vs Present tense. What caused poverty in Africa? Answer: who cares, it does not matter. You cannot change the past.
What IS causing poverty in Africa? Ah, now there is the question… And the biggest challenge to answering that problem is political correctness. Africa is full of power-hungry despots. Simple as that. Show me any poor African country that is a bastion of human rights and democracy post-colonialism. Anyone? Any African “democracies” where the rule of law applies? Where “government” and “corruption” aren’t synonymous?
Its disingenuous to blame “western capitalism” for sustained poverty. Look under your won doormat – stop blaming everyone and everything else. Africa should take responsibility for itself. Its not our fault. We were colonised its not our fault, the western Capitalists are taking our money (still love that – We hate the western Capitalists, but we love their aid!). Its not our fault, we have shitty weather its not our fault… Wake up, mother Africa – IT IS YOUR FAULT!
PS: viva capitalism viva!
I agree with B.
It would also be helpful if you blame global capitalism (or western capitalism) to be more specific. Like most lefties you throw around words like capitalism and neo-liberallism without giving any definition or concrete examples.
You briefly mentioned 4 issues:
(1) Deleting Debt: The international community should stop giving aid to African countries and African countries should stop lobbying for aid.
It creates dependency and most of the aid never reaches the people on the ground. A lot of development projects these days are specifically designed to bypass government agencies because of the rampant corruption.
So who is really to blame for the depth situation in Africa?
At least both parties are equally guilty.
(But I would argue that aid has been spectacularly misappropriated whilst African governments kept on spending often on the presidency and military.
(2) Fairer Trade
Agree. Guess who has higher trade tariffs, more cross-border trade restrictions and higher levels of corruption?
Subsidies in rich developed countries should be discouraged, but even unilateral trade liberalisation would benefit Africa more.
(3) Agricultural dumping
Isn’t Africa a net food importer? I guess we should be happy that we can at least feed our people with GM crops than have them starve…
(4) Better wages
Another common economic fallacy. Drop minimum wage legislation and liberalise labour markets. Make it as easy as possible for anyone to work and employ people (compete with China/Far East). Any work is better than no work!
NB. The book ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’ is written by a tree hugger who is desperate to avoid reality and who invents all sorts of politically correct scenarios to please his readers. It is as far from the truth about development as Thabo was about AIDS.
You do not seem to actually have read Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel”.
Jason, some inreresting thoughts indeed. However, you fail to include “cultural philosophy” in your list of possible reasons for continuing poverty and underdevelopment. Some cultures look forward and plan for the future. They tend to invest heavily in their childrens’ intellectual development and education, to equip them for the challenging times they expect ahead. By and large, these societies have prospered far better in a developmental sense. Converserly, there are cultures which prefer to emphasise past traditions and resist change. They often value dead icons and ancestors more than their children, who tend to be regarded as little more than a pension scheme in later life. Such societies cannot move forward and catch up in a world that is changing at an ever increasing pace.
“The problem with capitalism, is that it doesn’t create enough capitalists.”
[ Jeff Gates, former Counsel to the United States Senate Committee on Finance]
Capitalism means only One thing – “Building up capital” which applies to every individual, family, business, community or nation
Second principle “Never spend your own capital – use it as collateral to obtain the surplus of others.
The current problem could perhaps have been the universally successful board game ‘Monopoly’ that feeds the greed / status syndrome
@Antony:“The problem with capitalism, is that it doesn’t create enough capitalists.”
Why??? Because there is not enough capital in the first place.
Why? “Second principle “Never spend your own capital – use it as collateral to obtain the surplus of others.”
Would it be fair to conclude:
“Capitalism is doomed to create poverty because the people with capital use it to obtain more of others” and
“sitting on capital means power”
One thing is missing here: the definition of what IS capital?
A bag of gold?
A stack of printed money with varying values compared with other currencies?
A stack of shares in whatever with fluctuating value?
A piece of land in an area that fluctuates in attraction and thus value?
Last question: “would abandoning the poverty creating system of capitalism solve or reduce poverty?”
Garg Unzola – You should have stuck with the premise of your first argument, which made sense. Africa has had it easy, environmentally speaking, and cannot be blamed for not developing that killer/survivor instinct as sharply as some in other parts of the world. If we had earthquakes, volcanoes, greater difference in annual temperatures, less readily available resources, there would be little difference in attitudes globally. Inertia still operates as it should. Humanity is the same the world over. If we needed to pack away stores of food to survive nasty winters here in Africa, we might also have developed the hoarder culture into capitalism. Do not confuse innocence with ignorance or with a lack of intelligence. Why did Africa not invade Europe? Why bother, when we have everything we want right here? To be a better survivor than everyone else sometimes just mean that you might have been living in a war zone for far too long and got used to atrocity and should perhaps consider reconnecting with your humanity.
Jason Hickel – poverty and power have one thing in common, they are both relative concepts. I have met rich, powerful people who were really poor in spirit as I have met the converse. It all comes down to priorities.
That said, my fellow Africans does need to learn some hard lessons and fast. There is no such thing as a free lunch, someone pays, gifts always come at a price and the gift of a Trojan Horse should still be looked at with utter suspicion. Life is never fair, the princess does not live happily ever after and the Kingdom of Far, Far away has a tendency to invade when they feel they can. Stop Whingeying and learn to deal with the invaders. Don’t become the laughing stock by insisting they play fair or worse, pay reparations or worse still doing unto them…. It is not going to happen. Learn from the past and think of ways to counter the mistakes made and make progress, without losing African dignity on pursuits of foreign interests. Lose the Italian suits of Chinese silk and French design, it is soooo last century and really does not help our economy.
X Cepting: It wasn’t my argument, that’s just the environmental determinism argument. I disagree with it because adaptation to an environment occurs over generations. Altering the current environment will only show effect in hundreds of years. Secondly, evolution is undirected, there is no guarantee that adaptation to a similar environment would be similar. So those who adapted to harsher climates are a different breed than those who adapted to less harsh climates and you can’t change the one into the other by swapping environments – not in any deterministic sense anyway.