Message-ID: <0098E614350E8C60.00001A3C@tmar.com> Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 12:58:12 EST From: "Chuck B. at Ext. 214" <mailto:chuckb@TMAR.COM> Subject: Zambian exports To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L
It is unlikely (to put it mildly) that tobacco generates more
jobs, wages (overall and especially per capita, about which more later)
and foreign exchange than any other combination feasible for the Zambians
possibly could. The fact that it is currently a major export crop, though,
obviously means there would be major obstacles to "retooling" there.
It has been written that tobacco production is labor intensive.
Does this imply that per-capita wages are lower than they might be under
a different scenario, and/or that aggregate labor costs are higher than
elsewhere in the global market? Wouldn't less labor-intensive crops be
more appropriate where the agricultural population density is relatively
low?
Transport costs for export products are a given, but they are
associated with any product. They do not provide justification for
reliance on any one "good." Similarly, the fact that Zambia is blessed
with a great deal of uncultivated land is a source of promise, not an
obstacle to change.
Smoke clouds in public places may reflect strong demand, but
cannot be considered in isolation. They *imply* the desirability of
demand reduction, for the sake of the entire public's health and not
just the sake of smokers' health. One person's expanded sales potential
is another's poison; consider also that the seller almost always could
sell something else instead.
The choices are not between Puritanism and Libertarianism; there
is a middle ground on most issues. Promotion of smoking or of unprotected
sex, though, is not an abstract exercise in the espousal of civil rights;
the consequences can be deadly. In the long run, so can urban overpopulation.
As for whether development assistance has a corrupting influence and
contributes to the abuse of power, of course it can. But we should be on
the side of the angels, and not be amoral or short-sighted. Agreed?
c.b.