That’s the headline of this front-page story in today’s Globe and Mail, Canada’s largest national newspaper, concerning how the African nation of Malawi has rapidly transformed its food economy from famine to surplus, saving countless lives:
But starting in 2000, the donor nations on whom this country depends for nearly half its budget forced the government to scale back and then finally to scrap the policy, saying it "distorted the market" and would prevent a sustainable agricultural base.
The result? Smaller and smaller harvests and two years of famine.
Bottom line: food production is up 150%. But at what cost?
In other words, the subsidies only cost half as much as previous measures, and generated enough income to pay for themselves. Twice over. In addition to ending the famine.
This is, of course, pure sacrilege to those who hold "free" markets as a hallowed force of religious power. (Odd to see it front-paged in a national newspaper. Of course, I’m not in the US at the moment. I’m in Canada, where well-funded public health, education, transport, and educational systems would have destroyed the economy by now, if some disembodied heads on CNBC were remotely tethered to earth.)
My point here is not to promote or decry any particular economic agenda — I have none, personally — but to yearn for the sort of open-minded pragmatism that allows, y’know, a newspaper to actually report something useful like this without being instantly denounced for a breach of ideology.
What worked in Malawi may or may not work anywhere else. But it worked in Malawi.
Ideology apparently helped cause a famine. Moving past ideology helped stop one.
Camping out in downtown Vancouver (aka the Hollywood North Annex) for a little while.