Comments 3

飞跃资源诅咒

Nov 15, 2012 Simon Zadek

日内瓦—地缘政治见解通常来自真实生活的经验而不是高瞻远瞩的思考。从圭亚那科纳克里来到巴黎戴高乐机场就是这样一种经验：坐落于世界最贫穷国家之一的科纳克里的机场比法国闻名世界的全球交通枢纽更干净、服务更好，也更加充满了自豪。

圭亚那将科纳克里机场精神渗透到了整个国家，作为商品资源丰富国家，圭亚那是少数逃脱了自然资源禀赋丰富国常见的腐败诅咒和经济衰退的国家之一。

历史表明，避免所谓的“资源诅咒”是十分困难的，正如很多人所认为的，并非只有尼日利亚等欠发达国家才会受这一诅咒的困扰。20世纪80年代，英国北海石油和天然气开发破坏了该国基础广泛的经济竞争力，而首相撒切尔夫人的政府将大笔收入浪费在鼓励过度消费的宣传上。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 6 in all 6 Comments on this article

Nathan Coppedge Nov 17, 2012

Again and again, I think the key insight is how to extend cheap resources. Maybe this is already a big consideration for corporations, but I wonder if companies always connect with local governments about the very cheapest benefits. Sometimes someone may reflect that architecture, parking lots, etc. are themselves "contending with nature", but there is a trend in the news to exaggerate the effects of natural destruction, surely it could be realized that even crumbling cities are the basis for cities per se. Even if this is not the most ambitious goal, it might be the cheapest. I would not be surprised if local economies could often afford a crumbling city, when a little economic aid is taken into account. This seems like an underrated approach to development, which is perhaps taken for granted, and therefore does not always take place.

A second factor (allowing for a respectful pause on the first subject) is the value of top-down industries or pre-existing industrial tools to manufacture/produce durable goods for a mass market. Unless the economy is not taken seriously, there is sometimes potential (say, in crumbling cities) to finance mass-consumer goods made cheaply by pre-existing equipment. I predict that sometimes there would be a return on investment, even in some low-development countries.

This double approach, of crumbling cities and cheap manufacturing, seems like a star point when it comes to global development, and I think was taken for granted as a cheap idea in the earlier more robust sensibility, say, when people had details like the belief in classical literature and the durability of hardware made in Great Britain. Again and again I return to the point that qualia counts, and no "marketing assumptions" should get in the way of "detailing" the progress of the least common denominator. The very real conventions and realities of the poor should not be overlooked as a basis for patterns which return economic strengths. It is not just someone "up there" looking at an accounting book. There must be a loophole.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
J St. Clair Nov 16, 2012

"a global investment community ".....this group is sounding like an "entitlements" group.....could it be the top 2 percent again...
- Nathan Coppedge Nov 17, 2012
  
  In my view I have resolved that the top 2% owns the economy, and shifted to the macro benefits of a controlled economy. For example, the benefits of industry for the lowest common denominator is very evident in the mass production of sports jackets, etc.
  
  If one person gets a platinum tabletop from space mining, that's just a sign of economic robustness from my point of view. Soon enough, other people will have virtual platinum, and the only difference will be reality. This makes sense when it is assumed that industry benefits improve for the least common denominator, but not when industry fails to provide structural or qualia-based improvements. Consider for example, the limited benefits of public architecture for the very poor.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- J St. Clair Nov 16, 2012
  
  all yet "undeveloped" countries need to NOT look at what other countries have already done....they need something completely new and different....forcing people to live the same way "developed" countries live today is not the answer.....
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Nov 15, 2012

There are multiple problems here for which the present socio-economic setup, and most importantly the prevalent human attitude does not provide answers.
Just to mention 2:
- Since in the democratic political system politicians, parties elected in 3-4 year intervals, and since politics is all about winning the next elections, gaining as much public support during incumbency as possible, no politician or party is interested in long term solutions. Thus their motivation is to exploit whatever they gain in the short time they are in power so as a result they can extend their power. Only in quasi-democratic, or non-democratic governance systems can leaders plan for long term without disturbances, but of course such governance system hurts them in other areas as we see in China for example.
So first the general attitude of these leaders would need to change, them becoming servants in every meaning of the word to the public that elected them, only caring about the long term well-being of the nation they are chosen to serve.
Of course such politicians could only emerge from a society that have such values, and those values would triumph over the values we keep in high importance today, as fame, power, ruthless competitions, humiliating defeat of others and so on. Thus the whole society and its values need to change first.
- The other attitude that needs to change is how we relate to natural resources. In the previous and present fragmented, polarized worldview we looked at the world in partitions, as if the land we happened to be born on would belong to us, as if we deserved it, and whatever is found there is our own and we can do whatever we want with it. In a global, interconnected and interdependent world we evolved into, such approach cannot work. We do not own anything, we have no right to exploit something just because we sit on top of it. We are caretakers of the natural resources that is found in our proximity and we have a responsibility in how we share it with everybody else, and in return we get what others have.
Just like in a healthy body, for example if the lung decided that it wants to keep all the Oxygen to itself or only sells it on to the other organs with huge profit, the body would die of asphyxia, and lung together with.
This is how we behave today, while humanity has become a single, intertwined network, like one organism, we still behave as if we were separated and can operate on our own. Thus our whole approach to life, to the world, to human society needs to change.
If we could achieve the above mentioned attitude adjustments, we could create "paradise" here on earth, as there is more than enough resources to satisfy the needs of 7-10 or even 15 billions of people.
Everything depends on our attitude and mutual cooperation. This is the key for a predictable, peaceful and sustainable future for humanity.
- Edward Ponderer Nov 18, 2012
  
  There are two direction in existence -- order and chaos, unification or dissolution, information or entropy, life or death.
  
  Mr. Hermann's observation show recognition of this fact, pointing out particular example of the path towards death, and suggesting to turning around of the path towards life.
  
  What can I say -- I agree with him 100%. Who in their right might doesn't!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/uWQPqy7/zh;

飞跃资源诅咒

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Brexit’s Lost World

Showdown in Munich

India’s Trifecta of Failure

This Time Really Is Different

The Big Tech/FinTech Disruption

The Dialectic of Global Trade Policy

A Bright Future for Africa’s Girls

The Ideology Trap

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register