Man has always been a part of the environment and cannot live without it. We depend on it for survival – for food and warmth. We are so reliant on it to provide us with the resources to stay alive, that until now, we are still squeezing our brain juices on how to utilize the resources better for our own development. Over the years, we have become smarter that we employ technology to continuously and deeply exploit the environment’s resources – clearing land for houses and setting up of urban cities (deforestation) and overgrazing of livestock (desertification) etc. However, we do not realize that we can kill ourselves with our own wisdom.

 

Environment degradation occurs because there is a close connection between capitalism and the environment. To progress industrially, man exploits natural resources incessantly and this leads to environmental degradation. A good example here is China. China has been engaging in major industrialization efforts and economic reforms since the 1970s. However, irresponsible industrialization by profit-seeking companies has resulted in dire impact on the environment. Solid waste has been introduced into the rivers and lakes that water pollution is a source of health problems in the country, and air pollution has resulted in many premature deaths in China.

 

Certainly, economic reforms improve majority of the population’s standard of living. However, it has resulted in many varied social problems. Among which is the sacrificing of environmental needs for economic gains. This includes the Three Gorges Dam project. With the building of the dam, many near extinction animal species may face imminent threat. Many Siberian cranes which spend their winter in wetlands will be destroyed and the Yangtze River dolphin (Baiji) will face functional extinction. Also, over one billion tons of wastewater is released into the river annually and this will greatly harm the ecosystem. Man are always seeking a better life materially but failed to see how greatly dependant we are on the environment as well. Degradation of the environment will pose a serious threat to the survival of the human beings as well.

 

Now, I shall adopt a sociological viewpoint to the problem of environmental degradation. I contend with Murray Bookchin’s ideas that ‘environmental crisis is a result of the hierarchical organization of power & the authoritarian mentality rooted in the structures of our society.’ The reason why man dominates nature stems from domination of human by human. Also, ecological problems arise because of the social problems in the human world. We have been underpinned by social inequality and class status which led us to adopting a capitalist ideology. It is because of a dying need to increase our worth that we seek profits in trade and industry expansion but which, lead to environmental degradation. The media has instilled in us the idea of consumerism which leads to heightened mass consumption. We are consuming things that we need (necessities) as well as those we do not. Many resources from Mother Nature are diverted into the production of such luxury items to cater to the needs of the consumers. Hence, I think that solving the issue of population will not help because the idea of consumerism is already deeply rooted in our minds. Hence, if we want to stop this environmental crisis, we have to start ‘cleansing’ society’s ideology.

 

Many organizations are pledging that they will contribute to sustainable development and use nature’s resources wisely. However, there is no one true ‘green’ businessman. Going ‘green’ comes with a cost. Advanced technology has to be used in the extraction of raw materials and production process has to be improved to reduce releasing of waste. All these will increase costs and this is nearly impossible for a profit-seeking businessman to want to adopt this idea as he will be at a cost disadvantage and eventually be kicked out from this practical economy. Murray Bookchin also pointed that we can help solve environmental degradation if domination of any form in the society is removed. However, I think this is a far-fetched and idealistic recommendation. Domination in human beings cannot be eliminated as Man belongs to highly competitive animal species. Unless we return to the prehistoric times when life was possibly simpler, absence of a distinct inequality in society and lesser profiteering mindset, we can never return our environment its original beauty.

Who doesn’t love technology? I love technology. I love the way it increases efficiency and saves time. In the comfort of my home, I am able to surf the Internet for the latest gossip updates, talk to anyone (whenever I feel like) with just a click of the mouse and get my project done without making a visit down to the library. With technology, I simply get to re-experience life. Technology has made so many things ‘mission impossible’ to become ‘you imagine it, we invent it’. Everything around us is technology – advances in medical treatment, agricultural produce, forms of communication and even how warfare is conducted. Man used to fight with spears and shields and now it has evolved to using nuclear weapons and engaging in biological warfare. Yes, using such advanced technology in warfare does sound scary yet I hope to believe that these improvements in technology are beneficial to humankind. However, I know it is not as positive as what I make up to be. What we do not see, or simply choose to ignore, is the hidden truth that lies under this façade. No doubt technology has given us a lot of convenience. However, it is also the culprit for many social problems. I believe that technology does not improve our lives as it proclaims, but instead will negatively affect social relationships, development of the mind and overall society’s advancement.

Technology changes have brought about many social changes and the benefits are generally not equitably shared within society. Technology has replaced jobs that require no specialized knowledge and removing the need for human labour. The Industrial Revolution has displaced many workers from their land and forced to shift to the crowded cities to work in factories. There is greater social economic division as labourers are seen as commodities and replaceable. They often belong to the lower end of the society and are always the most disadvantaged. On the other hand, people with money have more opportunity to acquire technology, which enable them to generate even more wealth. One can easily see from here that technology benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor and that there is alienation and greater social divides as now, labourers and the wealthy merchants live within close proximity and the wealth differential is easily noticeable.

Also, technology has changed and shaped our ways of communication. From cordless telephones, we now have word-based MSN Messenger and even SKYPE, a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology for communication. However, I think that this technology, though convenient, is going to degenerate the society further. It has been found that many teenagers can only talk ‘behind the scenes’ and lack the personal communication and interaction skills. Social relationships have broken because of the advent of such technology. We can also see how social problems like crimes can take place over these platforms. Many men fake their identities and lure female targets for rapes and people use these online communication platforms to sell babies they have aborted! Our moral values have indeed suffered a serious breakdown.

With all these, I agree with the theory of social construction of technology but to a certain extent. Human action shapes technology but I believe technology shapes human actions as well. Technology will not come to live without the manipulation and minds of human beings. Who will ever think of having genetically modified food on our tables at dinner time? To want faster harvesting, human beings thought of ways to modify the agricultural produce. However, technology shapes human actions as well. Look at how technology has degraded the art of human interaction and communication. It has drastically changed our actions and shaped our lives. Hence, I think that the interaction between technology and mankind is a two-way interaction process. We created technology for efficiency and convenience yet we become so dependent on it that we do not know we have fallen into its trap and allow something we have moulded to thwart our lives.

In the past, a big population is seen as powerful, mighty and able to pose a dominant threat to the neighbouring countries. However, as population was found to be growing exponentially and environmental resources were unable to support this massive increase in human population, states started looking into ways in which population growth can be controlled so that it will not be such a heavy liability to the states in search of economic development.  One of the few states that pioneered population control was China.

 

China had a long history of population control and has earned both praises and criticisms for her efforts. She was praised for her ability to decrease population growth rate by half just after years it campaigned its first population control policy. However, there were more criticisms than compliments. Her highly debatable ‘One-child policy’ attracted the world’s attention as the way it was implemented by grassroot leaders were thought to be a violation of human rights and in turn led to drastic social consequences.  

 

The one-child policy promoted and at times coerced families to have only one child. Newly married couples were issued ‘queue numbers’ and waited for their turns to have children. For those who already have a child, they are required to pledge that they will not have another child and then issued a certificate which entitled them to cash bonuses, longer maternity benefits and even higher priority when purchasing houses. For those who had a child and the wife becomes pregnant again, they are advised to abort the babies. Counselling will be given to the couple to better prepare themselves and undergo the abortion operations. As for the others who have more than one child, they will be penalized heavily and no benefits will be entitled to them. Hence, from China’s case, we can see the degree of interference the state has in personal issues like childbearing. Childbearing has elevated from a personal (family unit) decision to another level – a state-controlled decision that is passed down to its people.

 

Though population control was said to be a ‘good-for-all’ solution and an imperative for economic development, the state’s interference has actually resulted in grave social problems. China’s highly ambitious policy has led to more than 100,000 cases of female infanticide a year which led to a great gender disparity in its society. Chinese believe that boys are better than girls as they can be sources of help in the farms and will take care of the parents when they age and girls will belong to her husband’s family when she marries. There are also many cases where women were driven to the walls due to the pressures exerted on them to bear sons for the family. Psychological states of women have become a rising concern in China. Moreover, China now has one of the lowest population growth rates in the developing world. In the years to come, China may face serious problems when its population is insufficient to drive its economy. Also, by the year 2050, China may face drastic ageing population and it will be a problem for the ‘one child’ to feed their parents and grandparents.

 

Hence, looking at all these, I can’t help but to question whether controlling population reaps benefits. Yes, China’s economy prospered but is it really because of population control? Also, was the state’s interference justifiable? It seemed to be like a dictatorship as couples were forced not to give birth and to have abortions. Finally, I think the state has crossed its line when dealing with this issue. It said that population control was done for the benefits of the people. However, when the many ‘one-child’ could not support their elderly or families lost their sole financial support in the future, will the state interfere again to help them out in times of need? Or will just leave them fending for themselves, because the main objective – economic growth, has already been achieved. Isn’t the state acting like a swindler? Give birth to only one and enjoy economic benefits (which you created yourself) but you have to bear the consequences if you lose that only one child in the future.

In the past, urbanization was introduced as a mean to protect human beings from the attacks of wild nature. Large forests were cleared and buildings were erected for that very purpose. In the modern era today, urbanization took place to create cities for political, economic and industrial purposes. We may be envious of Tokyo and New York where people are affluent and enjoying never-ending night life, ogling at women clad in the most fashionable clothings in town and admire the beauty of those magnificent high-rise buildings that seem to represent a powerful city that has no limits. However, we fail to unveil the dark side of urbanization and the social problems it has created amidst the facade of a prosperous city.

 

The cities have transformed from centres of politics influence to centres of economic production. This made urbanization grew rapidly as people are attracted to the opportunities that the cities provide. People from rural settlements flood the urban cities to fill up the low-end manual jobs which were then, critical for the progress of the cities. With migration taking place at such a rapid pace and the cities’ development at a slower rate, many people face the problems of having not enough accommodation, limited health care facilities and end up living in slums and quarters. These people were in search of better lives and hoped to break the poverty cycle. They came to the cities to build houses, office buildings and entertainment parks for the rich but end up not enjoying a luxurious living. Who is to blame?

 

Personally, I would say it is the state’s fault. 1) Rural and urban areas are what the state says to be. It all depends on whether the area is accessible to trade routes, has a large enough land and if it is the capital of the country. The decision to develop it into a city hinges on a very simple yet shallow idea: how much economic power the area can ‘emit’. 2) Necessary resources to develop the area into a city will be needed. Most often, such essential resources are taken from the rural areas around the periphery of the city and pumped into the development of the city. This is unfair as these resources can be used to develop the rural areas as well. 3) Also, because the centre of attention is now on the city, the state will also provide better facilities in there, such as health care amenities and entertainment venues. 4) As cities are also seeking expansion, more land area from around the cities is also used for development. Farms are cleared and make way for factories. Put all these together, the state is actually the one creating social problems for its own society. They first deprive rural settlers from proper homes and jobs, then later deprive them of progression and development. Once these rural settlers migrate to the cities (of course, the state has successfully lured them into the city and able to use them as tools for economic production), they are again deprived of basic living conditions and personal development. The gap between the rich and the poor widens because of such economic capitalist process.

 

Right now, we see how urbanization has caused rural settlers to be marginalized, all in the name of economic prosperity. More social problems are to arise, such as, health problems from overcharged water, drainage and sewer networks, environmental hazards from traffic congestion and increasing refuse, social ills as a result of psychological problems when living in highly densed cities and the possibility of terrorist attacks. It seems like urbanization is an inevitable path for countries but they are not tackling the social problems that are likely to arise if urbanization is to progress at this alarming rate. Sociologists, please fall in.

To analyse if true democracy exists, we have to first know what is meant by democracy. What characteristics does democracy possess? Essentially, with democracy, all members of the society will have equal access to power and that they can enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. Given such ‘perfect’ conditions of democracy, I think that democracy does not exist in the truest sense. To me, true democracy is just an ideal, a nirvana that everyone hopes to get there but it is in fact, unrealistic and a ‘Mission IMpossible’.

 

Why doesn’t true democracy exist?

 

i) As mentioned above, democracy works on the ‘majority rule’ yet in this society, it is the majority with the power and money who rule. Many countries claim that they have democratic governments in place but look at what is happening and reported (or even go unreported) in papers: umpteen cases of bribery and fraud in government institutions. The powerful and rich can manipulate the markets and even the way governments are run. Greed is human being’s natural instinct and hence, with money, anything can be accomplished easily.

 

ii) We were taught that every adult is given the right to vote and choose what they want but I think it is in fact capitalism that is governing, not democracy. Individuals including those in governments are after self-interests and protecting them. It is the nation-state swaying people’s stands using state policies. They use state policies to educate its people and in propaganding, swaying people’s minds in thinking that whatever they do, are for the interests of the people and thus make the poeple vote for the them and show support for their policies.

 

iii) Governments have become commercialized and power hungry because only ‘the fittest survives’.  Do they really listen to what the majority has to say or will they act in their own self-interests which they deem fit? In my own view, I will support the latter.

 

iv)Challenges to democracy emerge from within the boundaries of the nation-state. With globalization, there is no clear definition to a ‘nation-state’. The boundaries have become blurred. Many issues are now interlinked, like the intertwined economic ties across countries and they cannot be decided by a nation-state alone. National governments can no longer assume effective political power. It is now shared by diverse forces and agencies at national, regional and international levels. Examples will be institutions like UN, WTA. This makes true democracy impossible to be realized.

 

v) Democracy is just an ideal, just like we always have assumptions in theories that assume the simplest yet unrealistic conditions. We yearn for democracy but we have to face the reality conditions that prohibit us to do so. Not everything will turn out as expected. We provide education in thinking that it will produce wise and humane individuals, but does it? We say religions can provide spiritual balance so that peace and harmony can be achieved but does it? We want our doctors and nurses to treat patients with care, sincerity and empathy, but do all of them do so? Hence, all these years, we are only fighting for an improvement in the democratic system and not for true democracy. Reality has to be faced, that no true democracy will exist in any country. Democratic governments can only be made better but they cannot be asked for perfection.

Personally, I do not see any difference between war and crime. Both involve acts of violence and to me, war IS a form of crime. However, there is actually a stark difference between both terminologies. War is a legitimate violence. In war, they are allowed to kill people for some reason. To me, I see this definition of war as plain ridiculous and any normal person in the right frame of mind will not accept this form of definition. How can someone, institution or a state claim people’s lives and say that it is legitimate all in the name of war? We should put an end to war and not let these violent activities be carried on. In this post, I will be looking into why people resort to war, implication of war and why wars should be eradicated.

 

Wars have been inseparable with human history. However, the ways wars are carried out have become more ‘sophisticated’ – they use advanced technology in their attacks. Most of the time, we link wars to people who are facing poverty and lack of education. However, reports have shown that terrorists come from relatively well-off families and receive high levels of education. These terrorists act because of differences in political and religious ideologies rather than economic distress. However, I believe that these terrorists did not just surface all of a sudden. They might be suppressed by the society. There may be social inequality in that they are oppressed due to the religious beliefs they hold true to their hearts. They may be looked down upon because of their religious or political beliefs. Yes, one can say that they do not need to resort to violence (war). However, what I feel personally is that these individuals may have tried voicing their displeasures but their voices are too small to be heard. In other words, they carry no weight. To break this social inequality, they band together and resort to wars. It is only in this way that their voices can be heard and their opponents realize their presence and eminence.

 

However, it does not matter whether the war is an avenue for the suppressed to voice their unhappiness or if it is just a war to claim more land under its name, there are still serious implications of war. Many innocent lives have been taken away during wars. For example, more than 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion in July 2006. Not only that, there are also over 3000 American military casualties. These shocking figures on the human death toll in fighting countries are saddening. Both countries may have made known their stands during wars but there are always no clear endings to wars. No party is willing to give in and as such, lives of civilians and soldiers are constantly taken, yet their deaths are considered as legitimate. It is an irony because many countries are debating the legalizing of euthanasia but lives taken cruelly in wars are deemed as legitimate. Hence, are we going to let the states involved in wars be ‘on the run’? Wars bring with them negative consequences and possibly more social problems as well. For those who survived the wars, they are likely to be hurt emotionally and psychologically and grow up to be or become ‘scarred’ individuals. In multiple cases, they develop hatred in them and having grown in violent environments, they are likely to possess violent predisposition. This is a vicious cycle in which violence will continue so long as it is not eradicated. This, I hope institutions like the UN can look into. Even if super powers are at war, it does not give them the right to kill people.

 

We have learnt in class that crimes occur because there is social marginalization and alienation. It all boils down to materialism in contemporary society and that rich and poor are in spatial transition. However, is money a dominant factor in crimes? Are there other factors that ‘push’ people to commit crimes? To answer these questions, I searched online and found some interesting articles.

 

This article wrote on how Britain’s youths are so out of control that even the adults are afraid of them. What struck me is that these youths do not come from poor family backgrounds. They resort to violence because there is inequality and breakdown of family ties. How so? There was a class structure that impeded social mobility and an education system that rewards the elite. Not only that, they also shared distant relationships with their families and spent more time with their peers. Personally, I would say that they resort to violence because there is no support for them – they do not have anyone to turn to in times of need. Also, the society pressure is so strong that if one does not have ‘affinity with the textbooks’, they are deemed as the ‘useless bunch’ in life. No one likes to be perceived as failures in life and without supportive families for guidance, youths tend to mix with their peers and harbor negative perceptions of society and hence, resort to violence to show others that they are powerful and not useless. This is an example of youth violence in a developed country – the search for power and being recognized.

 

Another article mentioned youth violence in a poor neighbourhood in Guatemala City. Yes, the people living there are poor. However, poverty aside, these youths resort to violence because they were born into violence. They grew up in homes that were tremendously violent. Their fathers who were jobless were angry with their fates and ended up beating their children and wives at home. When these children grow up amid abuse and humiliation, they tend to become insensitive to these horrors and repeat the pattern of abuse to resolve problems. They see violence as the only solution to problems because that was how their parents solved their problems as well. This is an illustration of youth violence in a developing nation – violence that results from their living environment.

 

            Personally, I feel that youth violence is not so much about whether one is a rich or poor child. These youths, in fact, feel powerless. Globalisation has resulted in changing division of labour. Both mothers and fathers have to work to support a family. This has resulted in children not having the emotional support when growing up. There is no close one to guide them in life. They turn to their peers for support but in the search for power and probably, more attention, they resort to violence. Also, competition in societies is becoming stiffer. They see how their parents compete in economic lives and see themselves competing with their peers in school. When they realize that no matter how hard they try, they are still being slowly weed out in the competition, they get tired of the cruelties of society and start to view the environment they live in negatively. As a result, they turn to violence, hoping to find an end to everything. Hence, we have to consider: Does globalization bring about economic benefits to us or is it bringing way too many problems to the societies as well? To that, I think we may have to look at how we can globalise at a more ‘socially-friendly’ way so that our societies will not be harmed further.

Families are small units that form the foundation of every society. Division of labour first started in the family where the roles of men and women were clearly defined. Men were the economic pillars where they worked and provided shelter for their families. Women would be the nurturers, stayed home to nurture children and took care of the elderly or sick. Roles were so defined that we seldom see women in the workforce. However, because of globalization which results in industrial automation, lesser workers are required to work in manufacturing plants or assembly lines. These are normally the work of men in lower-income families and with low education levels. They were thus ‘sieved out’ by globalization.

 

These men who were once the sole breadwinners were thus angry and humiliated. They were displaced by the economy. I have seen many uncles sitting in coffee shops complaining about lives and how they often are the ones displaced. They lament technological improvements and the impact they had on their jobs.

 

Women at home later realized the need to work and sustain their families. Though low in education level as well, they took up jobs like dish washing just so that their children can continue studying and their husbands will not have to fret over the lost income. We can thus see the difference between men and women here. Men lost their pride because their once responsibility had been taken over by their wives. They started to get angry and many left homes. Women on the other hand, are willing to sacrifice for their families. Their work may be tough but the thought of their families pushed them on. Worse still, women’s responsibilities as homemakers remain unchanged. Their husbands who were instilled the mentality that ‘wives are the ones who take care of household chores and are better at them’ cannot bring themselves to help. This results in women being overburdened. It seemed like they have taken up 2 jobs – one in the day and another in the night. They thus become tired and stressed.

 

We often read about these real life stories in the papers. For the husbands who did not leave their families behind and left homes, they have also resulted in the breakdown of their marriages and families. This is definitely another social problem of concern. Husbands lost their self worth after being retrenched. They see themselves as useless, unable to provide and protect their families. They got fed-up and started venting their anger and frustration on their families. Thus, abuse cases of wives and children are often heard of in Singapore. Their wives suffered under their husbands’ various forms of abuses (mental, verbal and physical) and finally resort to divorces. Children in such families are unable to learn and develop as learning starts from home. They also do not see their families as a source of support and thus look to other sources. Some children end up breaking the laws and created yet again social problems like glue-sniffing. Some husbands even killed their own families in thinking that they can no longer stay in this cruel society and should perish together.

 

We can see that though globalization boasts about its economic benefits and how humankind benefits from the technological advancements, it brings with it many social problems as well. It led to unemployment and having poor people slugging their lives in the economy. Most importantly, the most basic and important component of society – family, is disrupted. Sociologists and economists need to understand the seriousness of this social problem. With the structure of families toppling down, many other social problems like suicides, children development and crimes will follow. We want our economy to grow and us be economically self-sufficient. At the same time, our spiritual and psychological supports which come from families should be maintained and not be compromised.

The International Division of Labour has a new ‘image’ to it. In the past, we will talk of it as confined to a boundary, eg. Hyundai assembly line in South Korea. Workers will each specialize in each area and repeat his/her task throughout the day, until the day he/she leaves the job. Now, thanks to globalization and the clever minds of big powerful companies, division of labour has taken a new form. It is no longer confined to the boundaries. In fact, it is so mobile that big companies can locate their plants and factories in Brazil and have their headquarters based in USA. The cheap labour in Brazil (and other newly industrializing countries) is ‘tapped on’ so that the post-industrial nations can produce the outputs faster, cheaper and in much larger quantities. All these, from the mouths of these post-industrial nations, are said to be benefitting the consumers who can enjoy attractive cost savings. In fact, I think the group that benefits the most is none other than the masters of production – Powerful corporations in post-industrial nations.  

 

Benefits reaped by the corporations are abundant. Just to name a few:

1.       Cost savings by establishing their operations in countries with cheaper labour costs.

2.       Workers in these corporations and their base country are spared from menial and sometimes tough and hazardous work.

3.       Goods can be produced cheaply and at the same time, charge high prices to the goods so that profit margin can increase tremendously.

4.       Will always be in a favourable position as it is easy for them to relocate to other territories should anything happen to the newly industrializing country that they are located in.

 

There is interdependency in this structure. To continue their economic growth, post-industrial nations depend on the newly industrializing nations for labour to support their production activities. At the same time, for survival, people in these newly industrializing nations reluctantly exchange their effort and work for a few dollars a day. Great inequality thus exists because the powerful corporations are always in the search for cheap labour while the workers still remain in poverty. This often boils down to using children as a form of labour. In fact, it is believed that it is better to employ children because they are quicker, more agile, grasp skills faster and are suitable for a lot of work. For example, children are used for sewing soccer balls because they have smaller fingers which make it faster to complete sewing a ball.

 

These corporations are not helping the people just by providing them job opportunities. What children need is to have higher wages so that they and their families will have more food on the table. The less than $2 a day does not even meet their subsistence needs. These children are not working because they want to but because they have no choice. They are facing poverty. They come from a disadvantaged group that does not have access to education and capital. And this is a serious implication of free trade.  It is aimed at improving lives but usually, interests of a dominant group are imposed forcefully on the other. With the belief that free trade is here to stay, I think that inequality, poverty and cheap labour exploitation will remain as social problems for a long time. It is of utmost importance that we look at the problems production has caused and implement practical, effective solutions. Cheap child labour has to come to a stop and it is time we return them the basic human right – education, so that they can be empowered with knowledge and will be aware of labour exploitation.

For a start, why cant the poor move to big cities for more opportunities when they know of their existence but still remain in their rural homes? I think it is not that the poor do not want to prosper, just that they cannot due to the social stigma placed on them. It is also largely because of their background and they way they are being brought up which shape the decisions they make in life. They were born in slums and brought up in peasant families which belong to a class of slaves and peasants etc. They were also told that they will not make it in life and they will remain in that status for their entire life. With this stigma, they are automatically made to think that they cannot work in a higher-paying job and cannot compete with those of higher status. They are also fearful of the cities as they are unsure of the uncertainties. Hence, with all these, can poverty actually be overcome?

 

Here, poverty does not mean literally poor financially. It is like what Don Reeves mentioned in his article, ‘Poverty in a Global Economy’, that poverty is ‘the involuntary lack of sufficient resources to provide or exchange for basic necessities-food, shelter, health care, clothing, education, opportunities to work and to develop the human spirit. I will be looking into whether poverty, particularly in African nations can be overcome. This is because, despite a wealth of natural resources, in 2006, 34 of the 50 nations on the UN list of least developed countries are in Africa. Can African countries break this evil spell and progress forward?

 

I have read that poverty in African nations are due to several reasons-mismanagement of land and misuse of money by the governments, high illiteracy rates, poor infrastructure, conflicts and catastrophes.

 

Mismanagement of land and misuse of money by governments

 

Despite large areas of arable land in Africa, it is difficult for the land to be put to good use by growing more crops and practice responsible planting by the people. This is because in many African nations, individual land holdings are rare. In others, the laws prevent people from disadvantaged groups from owning land at all. When this is so, it actually makes the poor even poorer. They do not receive education and all they may know is to farm, since many of them come from peasant families. By having such laws, they are pushing these poor people to the very ends. They cannot even plant some basic staples for their own subsistence. Next, so far, over US$500 billion has been sent to Africa in the form of direct aids. However, these aids have little long-term impact on the societies as they are either heavily invested in weapons or end up in corrupt governments.

 

High illiteracy rates

 

Education is important as skilled and trained people will form the pillars of strength in the development of countries. In these African nations, tertiary education is almost unheard of and this results in the lack of scientists, engineers and teachers. Without scientists, African nations cannot look into ways to combat AIDS (persistent problem in Africa). Without engineers, proper roads cannot be built to facilitate access to arable potable water. Without teachers, the nation’s next generation will not have the knowledge and the chance to be empowered. All these will impede the development of a nation.

 

Poor infrastructure, conflicts and catastrophes

 

Despite the fact that Africa is crossed by several major rivers and contains some of the largest freshwater lakes in the world, clean arable water is difficult to obtain in Africa. This is primarily due to its inadequate sewage treatment systems and the lack of proper infrastructure which can channel potable water to households in Africa. Even fuel for boiling water is almost impossible as fuel is scarce in many regions of Africa. Next, many African nations still face long-standing civil wars and conflicts with other countries. This makes matters worse because governments are pumping in huge amounts of resources into military forces. Many basic social services and necessities of life are not readily available to the civilians but are however, readily available in the military forces. There is indeed misappropriate allocation of such important resources. Lastly, catastrophes like famine regularly hit Africa which impede development of the nations and heighten the already stinging problems.

 

Hence, when we look at poverty, we tend to look to both the theories of Adam Smith and Karl Marx for solutions. However, right now in Africa, I think Smithian and Marxist approaches should all be put on hold. There are far more social problems to be solved then thinking of which economic policies to adopt. Looking at the reasons that have given rise to poverty in Africa, I believe it will take a long time for the problems to be solved. It is now not about donations and more aids. In fact, governments of African nations have not seriously looked into the problem of poverty. They have not prioritised what needs to be solved first, as evident in the case when they injected lots of resources into their military forces. Fighting does not bring an end to hunger and poverty. It does not bring about cleaner water for people. Governments should realize this and devote more resources to help its civilians, probably first by ensuring there are adequate sewage treatment systems in the regions. Then, invest on infrastructure projects that can help channel clean arable water to the many households and to make access to basic healthcare amenities easy. Having access to clean water is the most important as it can help combat the spread of diseases. However, all these require political will to do so. The political will to end poverty, provide brighter future for its people will have to start from a “clean” government. I would like to reiterate that the problem now is not in the amount of donations received but rather, in management issues. Internal problems will have to be looked at and dealt with first before they can look at how to sustain their progress and bring their countries to greater heights by their economic policies.