The main culprit of poverty in Africa (and other countries) is the widespread corruption. It's the destroyer of all entrepreneurial and business activity in those countries. Any business is continuously being robbed, ransomed and conned into paying "protection" money by gangs and law enforcement alike. In addition the civil servants demand payment for the most trivial licenses you need to operate your business. These all add up and make any business unprofitable because you cannot pass on those costs to customers.
To combat corruption these countries need to educate their population of its effects plus hefty penalties, including capital punishment, to get it under control. The higher up the tree the more severe the punishment should be. Politicians and senior civil servants should always be put to death since their corruption has the greatest impact.
I read that theory multiple times, and on the surface it makes sense, e. g. corrupt oligarchs siphoning away money. But there are countries in Africa not governed by a dictatorship; I think a small country in west/middle Africa led by a woman some years ago. And they still found it close to impossible to break out of the poverty circle. You also can not easily compete with richer countries - they pump more money into their production while also swarming the local market with somewhat semi-affordable stuff that gets subvention from home. You need to re-think the local economy first and foremost and fix that. Granted, that's harder when dictators seize power, getting their weapons from outside factors, but I think it is possible to solve that problem too.
OP is talking about corruption which is orthogonal to being a dictatorship. In fact the least corrupt subsaharan country is (by far) Rwanda, which is a de facto dictatorship.
And the impacts of corruption/cronyism/clientelism are not just money being siphoned at the top. It completely breaks any fair competition wether it's in economic markets or for jobs. Businesses don't succeed based on how competitive or innovative they are, simply based on who their founder knows and how much they're willing to pay in bribes, so your economic development stragnates. Important and influential positions are awarded not to the most competent but to the richest.
Opening a small business requires you to bribe dozens of people, and good luck if you need to import or export goods.
More competitive companies can afford higher bribes (consider Samsung), so corruption doesn't necessarily kill competition. Most African countries manage decent GDP per capita growth rates and ironically Ethiopia is tied with Rwanda for fastest growth at 7%. <a href="https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=ZG&most_recent_value_desc=true" rel="nofollow">https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locat... Certainly it could be faster with less corruption, but at least poor African countries are getting less poor. Maybe it'll also help them get less corrupt over time.
Who is going to educate the population when the elites in control of the country are fighting amongst themselves due to greed and selfishness?
Corruption isn't even fought by educating the masses, it just happens that at a given time, the country gets a less selfish leader who decides enough is enough and jails the culprits. This is how countries like Korea, Singapore did it
Corruption depends on the rule of law. And you can not have rule of law, when the primary state-forming institution is the clan-family. Its just not possible.
So any culture, that can not produce state-builders, is doomed to fail forever, with the history dotted with failures. Its hard to understand- but these states you see on the map, named and infamed- are not real. The clan who rules and the cityparts and cities they own and live in, that is the state. The rest- is conquered territories, ruled by other clan-families, who are subjugated and extracted from.
Which is why these countries are so much more prosperous when outsiders rule them, supressing the clan systems for anything more meritocratic.
It’s hard to see from a US perspective, but for us in Africa it _is_ an improvement. China is actively growing client economies in a continent that has seen little but exploitation for the longest time. Despite all the fear mongering, they are yet to take adverse possession of a state utility or force the sale of a national asset when loans have defaulted. You know who does do things like that? The world bank and the IMF.
I’m not a big fan of China or their politics, but they have certainly been much more beneficial for Africa than the West has in recent memory.
> Which is why these countries are so much more prosperous when outsiders rule them, supressing the clan systems for anything more meritocratic.
That's generally not how colonization worked. Quite often, colonization intentionally created the large scale tribal identities. Allegiance to clans grows because of deep suspicion of extractive governments put in place by outsiders.
The colonial system was meritocratic. It has a lot of bad things, but an absolutely staggering amount of Englishmen and Scotsmen and Welshman got their start and career through their hard work in India. A lot of whom, especially those minorities, would never have had a chance in G.B.
When those countries were ruled by outsiders, the people who ran them weren't picking capable locals to have power, they were picking capable outsiders to have power. (And that's in the best case.)
The locals were only used for manual labour and filling out conscript armies (overseen by coloniser officers). This creates societies where, for generations, none of the natives have any experience with doing any of the jobs necessary to actually govern a country.
You do know that Ethiopia wasn't technically colonized ever, right? It had a single 5 year period of military occupation by Mussolini and co around 1936...
Lol I don't know if this is a dog whistle so much as a dog call.
There is nothing inherently unique to African culture that means Africans need western saviors to understand why their primitive clannish ways are holding them back. The same social unit is native to all human culture.
The problem is that the rest of the world wants African natural resources and a weak, distributed African power structure is good for that.
Well, a broader interpretation of this idea is that paradoxically there needs to be a certain level of authoritarianism in order to have a civil functioning republic.
In the 1900s this was communism. A lot of people (either disingenuously or not) interpreted this as anti-democratic. But if you look at what actually happened where conditions were right, it turned out to work well- China and Vietnam, and if you just look at authoritarianism, not just communist authoritarianism, then Singapore, S. Korea, Taiwan as well. Some would also argue that the USA falls into this category- that the same arm of the government suppressing corruption is also going after marginalized groups.
There aren't that many examples in history where the ideal balance is actually struck.
The legacy of colonialism frequently results in state failure. This pattern is evident across Central and South America, Africa, and the Middle East, where former colonies often struggle with systemic corruption, instability, and a lack of diversified industry—beyond resource extraction such as oil or minerals. A practical benchmark is whether one would choose to reside in these nations; the answer is typically negative. Regions south of the United States border, as well as the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, and much of Southeast Asia, often appear to be sustained by precarious arrangements.
One might argue that the United States faces comparable challenges, particularly given recent proposals such as a $5,000 bribe can’t get any more third world than that. On a global scale, few nations offer favorable living conditions. Many countries endure prolonged conflict before achieving stability—a trajectory familiar from European history, which persisted until approximately World War II. There is little evidence that other regions will achieve cohesion without similar upheaval; such a process has not been observed elsewhere in human history without war, conflict and suffering with a little ethnic cleansing thrown into the mix. Historically, neighboring nations have provided minimal assistance in facilitating development for one another it’s been sink or swim, baby.
In South Africa, the gangs infiltrated the government. This isn't just paranoia or extremist political ideology, this was recently exposed in the Madlanga Commission.
> To combat corruption these countries need to educate their population of its effects plus hefty penalties, including capital punishment, to get it under control. The higher up the tree the more severe the punishment should be. Politicians and senior civil servants should always be put to death since their corruption has the greatest impact.
Giving the government the power to exert these punishments will only give the corrupt officials the power to legally do this to their enemies.
You seem to think corruption is part of local culture. In reality corruption is implemented and maintained by foreign colonialists as a tactic to maintain power over local resources. It is coldly planned for in think tanks and other dark corners of foreign colonial democracies
Hang on now: someone breaks into my house, strip mines it for anything valuable I have, takes multiple generations of my offspring out of schooling, beats and kills any offspring that request they stop and leave and it’s my fault the kids struggle to organize? And then when they do get “free”, lacking any example or group memory for how to fairly manage things, the worst of the kids take by strength and starve the rest. That’s my fault too?
All of us foreign colonialists would much prefer countries to be run by competent adults. There’s far more wealth to be gotten by trading with a state that functions properly, like say, Australia or even India where plenty of corruption exists but is kept in check… compared to the circus that is countries ruled by warring clans and outright 100% corruption like the worst cases in Africa.
> To combat corruption these countries need to educate their population of its effects plus hefty penalties, including capital punishment, to get it under control
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A lot of people who didn't know how corruption works in practice are getting a crash-course with the second Trump administration: in what order should your recommendations be applied to the Trump admin, and who's going to do it, seeing the DOJ is part of the executive branch and is partisan?
I’m a lot less worried about corruption in a country that has real elections. Trump is corrupt. He is exceptionally corrupt. But he won’t be President forever. If we elect Trump Jr. or something, well, that’s on us.
In Africa, the winner of elections is usually known up front because they’re not real. One clan/party rules until another one stages a successful bloody coup, and repeat on a 1/5/10/20 year cycle depending on the country.
Yes, in our advanced utopia the winning politician is not known up front, we get to pick from the two politicians who managed to accumulate the most debts to corporate interests! It's much better.
Oh, my bad for not considering that America has never had any attempts to meddle with elections[1][2][3], or a bloody coup attempt. Its institutions are strong and irs system of checks and balances is unimpeachable.
1. One of Jimmy Carter's autobiography mentions how corrupt Georgia's elections were/are
2. Jeb Bush stole the election for his brother
3. America has a long history of disenfranchisement
> The main culprit of poverty in Africa (and other countries) is the widespread corruption. The main culprit of poverty in Africa (and other countries) is the widespread corruption.
I disagree with this. The core culprit is that most people in Africa depend on the government, most are employed by it. So effectively the government is just taxing itself with no new money coming in. The solution is a revolution in SMEs, the entrepreneurial spirit and a large private sector. Basically more decentralization.
>The core culprit is that most people in Africa depend on the government, most are employed by it.
Just curious. What nations are you talking about when you say that "most people in Africa depend on the government"?
Only asking because this has not been my experience at all!
In fact I would say that most people in every nation I visited was dependent on themselves, their family and whatever support they could get from their larger clan. Poverty was rampant. Most of the middle class had clawed their way to that height through creating some kind of business. The degree to which these economies were dependent on remittances was alarming in my uneducated view. I would say far less than .5% of the people I interacted with had a government paycheck or even a government benefit coming in.
That said, I've never been to the wealthier nations like South Africa or Morocco or what have you. Maybe it's different in those places?
I realize now that I phrased it wrong, I should have said the largest employers are the government, with very little private companies. At least in my country (Namibia) this is true. Unemployment is high because the youth is waiting for the government to create jobs.
I've never been to Namibia. (Never been to any SADC nations actually). But I can assure you, other nations don't work like Namibia. In a lot of other African nations, government can be the largest employer and still provide jobs for less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the people. The rest of the people will be completely on their own. These people scratch and struggle for whatever they can get. It's not at all like Namibia from what you're saying.
Most are employed by the government because there's no substantial business activity in those countries. Every successful business gets robbed by both the government and gangsters.
Only menial businesses like supermarkets exist in those countries (people have to eat no matter how corrupt a country is).
As soon as an entrepreneur becomes successful and makes healthy profits they'll get raided by leeches. Usually they'll have to pay government officials for "protection" and politicians demand that their family members become part of the Board or management enabling them to pilfer the company's wealth even further.
Educate the populace is not going to work in the short term. What a lot of sub Saharan African countries need right now is a benevolent dictator/king. Strong emphasis on the benevolent part, someone truly looking to improve the countries and their populace. This person needs to put in strong rule of law and build out institutions and crush corruption. Once you have a stable working order, that is a much better time for democracy to be re-introduced. This is how most countries in the world were formed. Unfortunately due to colonization and a later progression, Africans were never able to complete that part of their development cycle.
That being said finding a benevolent dictator is easier said than done. I can’t really think of anyone that has fit that bill over the last 75 years in Africa, the closest might be Paul Kagame in Rwanda.
There is an inverse relationship between capital punishment and how advanced a country is. People who spread nonsense like this should be put to death.
> The main culprit of poverty in Africa (and other countries) is the widespread corruption. It's the destroyer of all entrepreneurial and business activity in those countries. Any business is continuously being robbed, ransomed and conned into paying "protection" money by gangs and law enforcement alike.
Isaac Bacirongo's autobiography, Still a Pygmy, has plenty of interesting comments on this topic. The main business theme seems to be that in Africa it's not really possible to extend (or receive) credit - if someone says they'll pay you later, they won't, and if you were foolish enough to believe them you're going to take a loss.
And yet, here we are with one of our greatest legacies- The Roman Republic/Empire which did do exactly that. Cleanse a horridly corrupt system with liberal use of the death penalty. "Every man is always thinking of the Roman Empire" except when it explains what we don't want to know.
hn_submit · · focus · HN ↗
To combat corruption these countries need to educate their population of its effects plus hefty penalties, including capital punishment, to get it under control. The higher up the tree the more severe the punishment should be. Politicians and senior civil servants should always be put to death since their corruption has the greatest impact.
shevy-java · · focus · HN ↗
forgotTheLast · · focus · HN ↗
And the impacts of corruption/cronyism/clientelism are not just money being siphoned at the top. It completely breaks any fair competition wether it's in economic markets or for jobs. Businesses don't succeed based on how competitive or innovative they are, simply based on who their founder knows and how much they're willing to pay in bribes, so your economic development stragnates. Important and influential positions are awarded not to the most competent but to the richest. Opening a small business requires you to bribe dozens of people, and good luck if you need to import or export goods.
yorwba · · focus · HN ↗
gentlerain · · focus · HN ↗
Corruption isn't even fought by educating the masses, it just happens that at a given time, the country gets a less selfish leader who decides enough is enough and jails the culprits. This is how countries like Korea, Singapore did it
hn_submit · · focus · HN ↗
warumdarum · · focus · HN ↗
Which is why these countries are so much more prosperous when outsiders rule them, supressing the clan systems for anything more meritocratic.
znpy · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
dayofthedaleks · · focus · HN ↗
Which almost makes China's mercantilist foothold on the continent seem like an improvement.
notduncansmith · · focus · HN ↗
giardini · · focus · HN ↗
notduncansmith · · focus · HN ↗
Two4 · · focus · HN ↗
I’m not a big fan of China or their politics, but they have certainly been much more beneficial for Africa than the West has in recent memory.
acjohnson55 · · focus · HN ↗
That's generally not how colonization worked. Quite often, colonization intentionally created the large scale tribal identities. Allegiance to clans grows because of deep suspicion of extractive governments put in place by outsiders.
halJordan · · focus · HN ↗
vkou · · focus · HN ↗
The locals were only used for manual labour and filling out conscript armies (overseen by coloniser officers). This creates societies where, for generations, none of the natives have any experience with doing any of the jobs necessary to actually govern a country.
Avicebron · · focus · HN ↗
vkou · · focus · HN ↗
idiotsecant · · focus · HN ↗
There is nothing inherently unique to African culture that means Africans need western saviors to understand why their primitive clannish ways are holding them back. The same social unit is native to all human culture.
The problem is that the rest of the world wants African natural resources and a weak, distributed African power structure is good for that.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
awongh · · focus · HN ↗
In the 1900s this was communism. A lot of people (either disingenuously or not) interpreted this as anti-democratic. But if you look at what actually happened where conditions were right, it turned out to work well- China and Vietnam, and if you just look at authoritarianism, not just communist authoritarianism, then Singapore, S. Korea, Taiwan as well. Some would also argue that the USA falls into this category- that the same arm of the government suppressing corruption is also going after marginalized groups.
There aren't that many examples in history where the ideal balance is actually struck.
hulitu · · focus · HN ↗
You can. See US (Boeing, Rockefeller etc), UK (Royal "family", house of lords, etc), Germany ( Porsche and others)
reenorap · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
ceejayoz · · focus · HN ↗
Danox · · focus · HN ↗
One might argue that the United States faces comparable challenges, particularly given recent proposals such as a $5,000 bribe can’t get any more third world than that. On a global scale, few nations offer favorable living conditions. Many countries endure prolonged conflict before achieving stability—a trajectory familiar from European history, which persisted until approximately World War II. There is little evidence that other regions will achieve cohesion without similar upheaval; such a process has not been observed elsewhere in human history without war, conflict and suffering with a little ethnic cleansing thrown into the mix. Historically, neighboring nations have provided minimal assistance in facilitating development for one another it’s been sink or swim, baby.
matheusmoreira · · focus · HN ↗
radialstub · · focus · HN ↗
> To combat corruption these countries need to educate their population of its effects plus hefty penalties, including capital punishment, to get it under control. The higher up the tree the more severe the punishment should be. Politicians and senior civil servants should always be put to death since their corruption has the greatest impact.
Giving the government the power to exert these punishments will only give the corrupt officials the power to legally do this to their enemies.
There is no hope for these countries.
slim · · focus · HN ↗
stickfigure · · focus · HN ↗
tclancy · · focus · HN ↗
throwawayfifo · · focus · HN ↗
ceejayoz · · focus · HN ↗
xp84 · · focus · HN ↗
slim · · focus · HN ↗
overfeed · · focus · HN ↗
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A lot of people who didn't know how corruption works in practice are getting a crash-course with the second Trump administration: in what order should your recommendations be applied to the Trump admin, and who's going to do it, seeing the DOJ is part of the executive branch and is partisan?
xp84 · · focus · HN ↗
In Africa, the winner of elections is usually known up front because they’re not real. One clan/party rules until another one stages a successful bloody coup, and repeat on a 1/5/10/20 year cycle depending on the country.
idiotsecant · · focus · HN ↗
overfeed · · focus · HN ↗
1. One of Jimmy Carter's autobiography mentions how corrupt Georgia's elections were/are
2. Jeb Bush stole the election for his brother
3. America has a long history of disenfranchisement
merelydev · · focus · HN ↗
I disagree with this. The core culprit is that most people in Africa depend on the government, most are employed by it. So effectively the government is just taxing itself with no new money coming in. The solution is a revolution in SMEs, the entrepreneurial spirit and a large private sector. Basically more decentralization.
bilbo0s · · focus · HN ↗
Just curious. What nations are you talking about when you say that "most people in Africa depend on the government"?
Only asking because this has not been my experience at all!
In fact I would say that most people in every nation I visited was dependent on themselves, their family and whatever support they could get from their larger clan. Poverty was rampant. Most of the middle class had clawed their way to that height through creating some kind of business. The degree to which these economies were dependent on remittances was alarming in my uneducated view. I would say far less than .5% of the people I interacted with had a government paycheck or even a government benefit coming in.
That said, I've never been to the wealthier nations like South Africa or Morocco or what have you. Maybe it's different in those places?
merelydev · · focus · HN ↗
bilbo0s · · focus · HN ↗
Namibia is relatively wealthy.
I've never been to Namibia. (Never been to any SADC nations actually). But I can assure you, other nations don't work like Namibia. In a lot of other African nations, government can be the largest employer and still provide jobs for less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the people. The rest of the people will be completely on their own. These people scratch and struggle for whatever they can get. It's not at all like Namibia from what you're saying.
hn_submit · · focus · HN ↗
Only menial businesses like supermarkets exist in those countries (people have to eat no matter how corrupt a country is).
As soon as an entrepreneur becomes successful and makes healthy profits they'll get raided by leeches. Usually they'll have to pay government officials for "protection" and politicians demand that their family members become part of the Board or management enabling them to pilfer the company's wealth even further.
dyauspitr · · focus · HN ↗
That being said finding a benevolent dictator is easier said than done. I can’t really think of anyone that has fit that bill over the last 75 years in Africa, the closest might be Paul Kagame in Rwanda.
bluecheese452 · · focus · HN ↗
thaumasiotes · · focus · HN ↗
Isaac Bacirongo's autobiography, Still a Pygmy, has plenty of interesting comments on this topic. The main business theme seems to be that in Africa it's not really possible to extend (or receive) credit - if someone says they'll pay you later, they won't, and if you were foolish enough to believe them you're going to take a loss.
Corruption was a smaller concern.
confidantlake · · focus · HN ↗
A country with high levels of corruption cannot be trusted to fairly carry out capital punishment.
halJordan · · focus · HN ↗