LISTSERV - GAMBIA-L Archives - LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:55:47 +0100
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask] (Martin Wolf)
Subject: RE: Your Views On Prof. Kanbur's Resignation
To: [log in to unmask]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Description: Reply

Dear Mr Kanteh,

First, I agree that my views of NGOs were too simplistic. I accept that some=
=20
are more pro-growth than others.

As to the attachment, I found it interesting. I don't really accept that the=
re=20
can be sustained growth that is not also development. But this may be largel=
y a=20
matter of definition. I agree that societies must make their own choices. I=20
also agree that everything cannot be privatised - and have never said so. Bu=
t I=20
think that you can't expect western taxpayers to fund programmes with which=20
they are entirely out of sympathy. So if a country wants to pursue a line=20
entirely of its own, it can also do so on its own.

Yours,

Martin Wolf




[log in to unmask] on 06/24/2000 10:56:40 PM
To: Martin Wolf/LONDON/FINANCIAL TIMES@FT
cc: =20
Subject: RE: Your Views On Prof. Kanbur's Resignation


Dear Mr Wolf,
    I write to inform you that your views on Prof. Kanbur's resignation from=
=20
the World Bank's Development Report team was forwarded to an online communit=
y=20
of Africans/Gambians both home and in the Diaspora and it was greeted with=20
both enthusiasm and controversy.
    Even though I subscribe to the central conceit of your argument against=20
NGOs, I find your judgement too sweeping because there are indeed NGOs out=20
there which are not really anti-growth and not inherently anti-capitalist or=
=20
science.
    One of the most lucid and contrary views we had on the mailing list whic=
h=20
I am a member of came from a gentleman by the name of Ousman Manjang, who=20
runs an NGO back in the Gambia. The gentleman used to be part of the African=
=20
Diaspora but back home now running a very successful NGO. See below a pasted=
=20
copy of his views. I thought you might be interested in seeing such an=20
intriguing but contrary view to yours. I hope it provokes a response from=20
you. If it does, I would be more than glad to forward it to him and the=20
mailing list.
Whilst anticipating your kind and favourable response, i remain,
Sincerely,
Hamjatta Kanteh

****************************************************************************=
*
Dear List members,

As a member of the NGO community in The Gambia I cannot resist the temptatio=
n=20
to
comment on this write-up by Mr. Wolf on Prof. Kanbur=B4s resignation . I thi=
nk=20
the
statement made by Mr. Wolf implying that there exists NGOs that are "anti
-growth" is  not only  unfounded but tendentious and not very objective.=20
Perhaps
it had better remained in the factional pamphleteering that currently rages
within the bank and other Breton Wood institutions. No NGO committed to
development can fail to see the interrelationship between growth and=20
development.
There can be growth without development, but there can't be any development
without growth. So the exclusivity is not necessarily mutual! It is just a
question of emphasis here, mark you.  Because growth does not necessarily=20
lead to
development, pro-growth "hares" tend to forget about development. And becaus=
e
development necessarily implies growth, the pro-development "hounds" tend to
forget about growth. To make matters more difficult, while growth is=20
quantifiable
and an easily measured quantity, "development" is a more philosophical
phenomenon, difficult to define, somehow rooted in the formulator's vision,=20=
or
perhaps we can say, a calculus with indeterminable variables. Even Mr. Wolf
himself does not seem to be free from his "own" perception of development=20
that is
also rooted in a certain vision,  a world view, I dare say, even a  way of=20
life .

Read him writing that the bank cannot be fence-sitting:  "It does mean that=20
the
Bank is a component part of the western system of market-oriented institutio=
ns
and ideas. It must not cut itself off from these roots."

This is where the problem lies. The assumption of a papal role by a western
institution, armed with the magic wand of market fundamentalism, convinced o=
f=20
the
belief that only its own single totalitarian model of social organisation is
right and universally applicable; and that it alone can salvage humankind, a=
re
only too apparent. The standardized prescription peddled by the bank and IMF=
=20
the
world over for decades, is  in fact not only a programme of economic
reorganisation , but more fundamentally, it is an onslaught on the forms of
social organisation and the way of life of non-western peoples. It is an=20
attack
aimed at breaking the solidarity-web of closely knitted communities, in orde=
r=20
to
promote egoism that will keep the fire burning under the "lazy niggers" and
hoping that when they jump, some profit, somehow, somewhere, will be made. O=
r=20
in
other words, strip man of all his social ethos, let go his animalistic=20
instincts,
and there will suddenly be competition just before development. What could b=
e
more neanderthal-like than this?

Sections of the world NGO-community do not agree with Mr. Wolf on this.
Development, we say, does not necessarily have to take the western model. On=
e=20
of
the greatest illusions of the past century, or the last millennium, I dare=20
say,
has been the belief in a uni-linear pattern of historical evolution for all=20
human
communities under the sun . All the great orthodoxies of the past centuries=20
have
insisted on this. It is about time, we begin to revisit this precept.  The
opinion-builders of the West and their banks are yet to sober up from the
hang-over from their victory of the cold war. Though that war was essentiall=
y=20
a
long fought war between two geographic zones raging since the break up of th=
e
church to its orthodox and catholic factions in the middle ages, it had for=20
the
most of the 20th century appeared as one of modes of social and economic
organisation. The contention has succeeded in impressing an overdue emphasis=
 =20
and
preoccupation with forms of ownership in even current economic thinking. The=
=20
West
has simply picked up one of the icons of the Cold War to toot as a magic wan=
d=20
of
timeless and universal applicat ion. Privatisation for privatisation's sake,
seems to be the song.

Look at Liberia of the 1950s and and 1960s and you will see a premonition of
latter-day thatcherism. Even the fire services, prisons and police departmen=
t=20
ran
as enterprises. It is not only the state-owned economies that failed in Afri=
ca
but even the private-owned ones. The cause has to lie deeper than the=20
harangues
of the Cold War.

Look at the recent season of groundnut trading in The Gambia, representative=
s=20
of
western donor countries had, through the Agric Business Plan Agency, insiste=
d=20
on
absolute government non-involvement. Even the newly created Federation Of
Agricultural Cooperatives (FACS), legally the owners of all the infrastructu=
re
related to groundnut trading in The Gambia, were barred from directly
participating in the trade through the use of the threat of the STABEX=20
withdrawal
due to suspicions of being close to government.. This, even though, the thre=
e
so-called private operators had little capital of their own to invest in the
groundnut trade. A timid government, arms twisted,  had to use public funds=20=
to
finance the three. A reported D113 million of public funds was used for a=20
venture
that everyone was going to even pay off.That is what I call fundamentalism.

Members of the NGO community, the world over, are for growth, but we are not=
=20
for
growth that will annihilate half of the population to keep the other half
prosperous. Yes, we are for growth , but we are not for growth that will
unavoidably impose alien lifestyles on all the peoples of the world. The mor=
e
globalised the world becomes, the more we must learn to share each others jo=
y=20
and
sorrows in a globalised  world rich with various ways of  living and=20
life-forms.
This may sound idealistic, but which isn't.


NB: Please note that the above are wholly and solely the opinion of the writ=
er
and not the organisation.
Thanks for taking your time.
Ous



hkanteh

hkanteh





*********************************************************************
* Please visit the web site of the Financial Times at:              *
*                         http://www.ft.com                         *
*                                                                   *
* This E-Mail is intended for the use of the addressee only and may *
* contain confidential information. If you are not the intended     *
* recipient, you are hereby notified that any use or dissemination  *
* of this communication is strictly prohibited.                     *
* If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us       *
* immediately then delete this E-Mail.                              *      =20=
                             *
*                                                                   *
* [log in to unmask]                                                 *
*********************************************************************