[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
8162: RE:8157-economics (fwd)
From: steven white <email@example.com>
This was one long post I did not give up reading in the middle. The
makes several very good points, and never digresses. However, the
assessment lacks historical and contextual perspective. Yes, Haiti's
public sector is inefficient, but why? The system has never been
organized to provide services, it has been a system designed to enrich
those in power. Corruption was rewarded under the Duvaliers, and it is
not just going to disappear. Those who have been successful have never
contributed to the public good, they take from the people, then they
take from the government, then they send the money to foreign bank
accounts. That is the historical perspective.
Other countries in the region also have economic problems. The DR also
has terrible poverty and corruption. Foreign investors routinely
extract billions in profits from the region, using strong arm tactics
against workers who organize, and paying off corrupt governments to get
access to resources. That is the contextual perspective.
The writer also compares Haiti to countries which are economically
successful today. How did these countries become successful? How is
their history and culture different from Haiti's? What conditions were
different at the time these countries were developing? To say that
Haiti today should adopt policies similar to these countries ignores the
fact that Haiti is at a different stage of development. Most successful
countries have a civil service system with checks and balances, and some
protection for whistle blowers.
That's all I am going to venture on this, I have already said enough to
get lambasted by the experts on the list. I am not an expert on
economics, just a dedicated civil servant, who was privatized out of an
honest job in New York by a backdoor deal between a corrupt official and
a big corporation.