Monday, January 30, 2012

Little compassion for Ethiopian farmers (Part 2)

 | 

 

5Share

Geletaw Zeleke

The Ethiopian government has been claiming double digit growth for the past more than half a decade. According to the government, Ethiopia’s economy is growing at a rate of 11% which puts it at the top of rapidly growing countries around the world. By comparison this rate of growth would put Ethiopia along side of the tiger countries. Economic experts say that if there is an overall 11% rate of growth then, there should be an income increment of eight percent. Therefore, Ethiopian farmers, civil servants and traders should have been enjoying an eight percent increase in their income throughout the past decade.
In my previous article I tried to show, empirically, how the income of the Ethiopian civil servant has declined over the last 20 years. Let alone never experiencing an eight percent income increment their income in terms of dollars together with the surge of inflation shows a shocking loss to their economic empowerment. When we take a look at farmers’ lives we see the real face of Ethiopia’s multidimensional poverty. In fact the life of farmers is much worse and more complicated than that of civil servants.
In this continued short article let’s discuss some of the challenges of Ethiopian farmers from the following points of view.
1) Absurd land policy and land grab
2) Knowing and maximizing the potential of agricultural products
3) Social justice and human rights
Land Policy and Land Grab
First of all, no one is against investments. Investment in all sectors including agriculture is the job of responsible governments. No one country could grow by closing its doors to foreign investors. The fundamental difference of agricultural investments and land grab, however, is that Foreign Investment, in a sense, is a bridge of solidarity of nations based on mutual respect and benefits. Whereas, land grab, in a sense, is a form of disrespect toward the counter nation and it is also a systematic invasion of one’s sovereignty in the 21st century. Foreign trade and investment must be shaped by the principles of solidarity, compassion and responsibility.
The Ethiopian government appears to draw pleasure from land grab in place of encouraging and supporting Ethiopian farmers themselves. A government who claims to believe in agricultural development leading the industry (ADLI) is supposed to work to transfer one hectare hold farms to medium and large scale farms. Otherwise, how can farmers lead the country’s economy? Farmers who have 6 family members on average and hold one hectare of land are not be able to feed themselves as we have seen. Year to year they seek aid especially in the months of June, July, August, September and October.
Ethiopian has abundant virgin lands. According to Rene Lefort, Ethiopia has a projected figure of 7 million hectares available for 2015. The saddening reality, however, is that poor Ethiopian farmers are concentrated on 12 million hectares where they struggle for survival while the vast areas of arable land for sale are out of their reach.
The problem of land grab goes beyond the immediate issues of economic inequalities. In Ethiopia for example land grabbers can get a lease of up to 99 years. The problem with this is that cultivation of that land can ultimately fall down the water table of the land. The main land grabbers of Ethiopia are Chinese, Indian and Saudi Arabian. All of these investors came to Ethiopia to buy land not only because they have a shortage of land but rather because their water tables are failing due to over pumping. One of their main concern is not a one or two time profit but indirectly preserving their water table for the next generation
The question remains of why the government sells its lands while millions of farmers are starving? What is the profit for the government? Instead of resettling Ethiopian farmers the government again seems so excited to sell its land for almost nothing. One of the incentives for land grab is in fact to get support from abroad. Those benefactors who get land for nothing will always support the government to their full capacity. So the profit of the government from land grab is not the small money that it earns from the lease but is the long term benefit of the relationship to guarantee its control.
No matter how much the Ethiopian farmers citizenship rights are violated, no matter how much the small holder gets in trouble, no matter how much the water table will fall the EPRDF will never worry about these things. They always look for opportunities to prolong their power. Nowadays Ethiopian arable land will be for sale to become an instrument to prolong the agony of Ethiopian farmers.
.
Knowing and maximizing the potential of agricultural products
Another problem for Ethiopian farmers is that they do not know the full potentials of their agricultural products. In 2010 I had the chance to participate in the 21st Asian Friendship Society Annual Conference in Osaka, Japan. There I met a man from Japan who I asked how many things are made from rice in Japan. After he thought for a while he listed a number of remarkable and unexpected products. The Japanese use rice to cake, many kinds of breads, juice, soup, pasta, macaroni, pizza, rice cheese, rice milk, cleansing cream, lotions, soaps, facial masks, alcohol and more. The Japanese see the potential of rice and use it for the purpose of what they want. After hearing what that man told me I thought of fenugreek, adenguware, the pea-like vegetable shimbra ሽንብራ, guwaya ጓያ and sinafich ስናፍጭ. In Ethiopia about 146 types of crops grow. This puts Ethiopia at the top of countries in the world with the potential to grow many kinds of crops. I was wondering what are the potentials of some of the Ethiopian plants. What is there inside the pea-like vegetable ሽንብራ? Can it be soap? Can it be lotion? Can it be a facial mask? Can it be shampoo? What is the potential of Fenugreek? Can it be cheese? Can it be milk? Emphasis on food engineering will help to know and use our products in optimizing ways. The potential of the variety of Ethiopian soil for agriculture and the potential of Ethiopian unique cereals must be known in order to eliminate hunger from Ethiopia. Self-reliance can be achieved through knowledge about our products potentials.
The Ethiopia farmers are very hard working people some research shows that Ethiopian women farmers work 18 hours per day but, the problem is that they do not have conventional ways for production. The responsibility rests on the shoulders of the government but the government does not concern itself with educating farmers.
In the 1970’s in Ethiopia basic education programs were a good example for African countries. Adult farmers were starting to write their names and they could even do basic mathematics for the first time in their lives. Unfortunately, this and other such programs did not continue with the same passion when the current regime came to power. If such programs did continue at the same rate of success after 20 years today’s middle aged farmers would be better prepare. They could easily adapt technologies to solve their immediate environmental problems; they could improve their food culture and grow more vegetables; they could improve their knowledge and attitude towards their internal and external environments. Unfortunately, the current literacy rate remains at 35.9% which is one of the lowest rates in the world.
Social justice and human rights
About eight years ago an Addis Ababa Education Bureau official held a meeting with Addis Ababa school directors at which I was in attendance. During that time he read a comparative study of Ethiopian current development at the time. According to the research presented on average Ethiopian farmers had to walk 6 hours to get to a main road, and that in all sectors access to education, health and infrastructure is behind that of neighboring countries. According to his presentation if we continue to progress at the same rate of the last 10 years we will need 30, 40, 50 or 60 years to catch up to neighboring countries like Sudan and Kenya. So, the current generation can not see Ethiopia reach the level of development of today’s neighboring Kenya and Sudan in their life span. The current per capita income, which is an estimated 350USD does not represents the vast majority of farmers in Ethiopia since economic disparity is very high.
Taking a look clean water supply farmers are the most neglected society. Since 70% of our body is water we need to drink clean water in order to improve our life span. In the 21st century while most countries are improving their access to clean water most Ethiopian farmers are highly exposed to more than 70% of water born diseases.
When we look to the human rights conundrum farmers are the most vulnerable group of society. The characteristics of human rights violations in cities and rural areas are very different. The pattern of human rights violations in cities is more likely systematic as a result of higher levels and volume of information flow and the presence of international human rights watches. In remote areas it is easy to violate farmer’s rights. Today Ethiopian farmers do not have privilege because of this it is difficult to get at their fears and experiences through interviews.
Today Ethiopian farmers seem to have stopped telling the truth about the regime because they know that the consequence is a dangerous life. Since the land is owned by the government farmers do not have security. On the other hand when we talk about human right the first right is the right to food. But, whenever we here of starvation striking the first and the vast majority of victims are farmers.
In rural areas murder, detention for long periods of time with out court order, disappearance and countless human rights violation are being perpetrated on Ethiopian farmers. The voice of the of farmers’ agony is echoing, little compassion for farmers.
Geletaw Zeleke
geletawzeleke@gmail.com
References
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ren%C3%A9-lefort/great-ethiopian-land-grab-feudalism-leninism-neo-liberalism-plus-%C3%A7-change
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/25/the_new_geopolitics_of_food
http://www.ethioinvest.org/agriculture.php

Thursday, January 26, 2012

The New Way of Thinking about Redistribution

The New Way of Thinking about Redistribution
                              By- Geletaw Zeleke
                                      Editor- Magill Dyess

In this piece we will discuss the concept of redistribution of wealth using the following questions as the taking off point.
  
What is the meaning of the term Redistribution?
Is redistribution a Socialist economic doctrine?
Is redistribution a just practice in a Capitalist doctrine?
Where does Redistribution exist and how is it justified?
What are the types of Redistribution?


The Term Redistribution

What is the meaning of the term Redistribution?

For my discussion of the concept of Redistribution I thought it would be good to look at the formation of the word itself first. The term redistribution made of the dependent morpheme re- prefixed to the nominal form of the word to distribute. The prefix re- telling of the repetition of the action and the word distribution referring to the transfer of wealth.

When wealth is set out to be redistributed it is recognized that it has previously been dolled out for a certain number of cycles. So the sense of the term redistribution has to be seen not only as a one time phenomenon but rather as of a cyclical and recurring action.

In a normal functioning society, wealth transfers from both high concentration to low concentration and low concentration to high concentration. In a redistributive capitalist society this is a non-stop phenomenon. Wealth flows from the rich to the poor by many mechanisms such as progressive taxation, social welfare and others. On the other hand wealth flows from the poor to the rich in the form of the regressive taxation like VAT (value additional tax) and other mechanisms.
Socialism and Redistribution

Is redistribution a Socialist doctrine?

Many people seem think that the concept of redistribution is the economic doctrine of Socialism. However, this understanding comes from the failure to realize the nature of redistribution. The socio- economic doctrine of typical socialism is fervently against the redistribution of wealth.

At its very beginnings Socialism was born from anger and a thirst for revenge from the past greed of capitalist. As we have learned from history capitalism caused socialism to emerge aggressively in some socialist countries. In the past greed capitalism embezzled income from the lowest economic strata of people and the elite were not willing to redistribute this wealth.

When the upset class took power from the elites they controlled the country’s wealth from within the government in the name of the public. The working class thought that the country’s wealth being owned by the majority would bring an end to economic stratus groups within the society.  According to them, by doing this justice would prevail. 

For this doctrine, justice could be achieved and individuals could be satisfied by abolishing riches and realizing equal income distribution. This doctrine advocated state control of all means of production as well as the distribution of goods in their minds putting an end to the need for equality.

The questions remained, however. Can individuals be satisfied if they earn the same wage; is the earning of equal income a just practice in itself? Was the motive of the oppressed workers jealousy of the rich or were they simply in need of fairness? Does socialism refuse to consider the state of individual nature?

Though socialism advocates equality the political system is highly centralized. The system doesn’t allow enough room for individual choice or ability. This system can not achieve distributive justice.

It is impractical to say that every person will have the same aptitude but providing equal opportunity is fair and just.  Likewise a new economic doctrine of redistribution has to give equal opportunity for all but it is unjust to bind individual’s need to excel. Moreover, although the human being is a socially bound creature and individually separated or individual difference does exist and because of this we can not say that all human beings would be satisfied with an equal wage.

In human social life class is not viewed only by terms of economic status. Class also includes the status of high, middle and low rank military and civic organizations; there is also the status of high, middle and low rank in academia and the professional world which includes scientists, professors, doctors and others. In religious organizations there are hierarchies that carry with them social status as well. In general stratus groups are a natural phenomenon in a society’s life apart from the distinct group of economic stratus. Economic strata is one aspect of social life.

The solution to getting rid of injustice is not destroying classes but instead making a system which can respect and treat all class fairly.

Socialism sees economic strata as an unjust phenomenon in the society’s life. Therefore, in this doctrine, once they distribute wealth there is no need for redistribution because there is no economic class. They believe that if they destroy the economic ladder then individual souls will be satisfaction enough.  The doctrine persists satisfied with being poor together lest any economic strata should arise within the society.

However, breaking the circulation of wealth from high concentration to low and vise versa inevitably kills the activation of the growth of the economy.

Growth is a natural phenomenon in all aspects of a human being’s life. Just as knowledge, skills and talents of human beings grow so to do their wants, needs and desires. This growth does not have the same rate and it is impossible to bind individuals to grow at the same pace. This practice exists outside of the state of human nature. Every person has his or her own qualities. Therefore any aspects of social or economic policies should be shaped to allow for these potentials.

More over, activation activates a society’s life. Competition is a natural need of humans. Whenever competition is stymied innovation and development decrease. This is a further arena where socialism has failed.

Socialists seem to have attempted to get rid of unjust practices by employing unjust practices. The doctrine of Socialism does not worry much about the progress of individuals but instead concerns itself with adjusting its pace to meet the “majority”.

Socialism while it is fascinated in distributing wealth does not worry about the distribution of power and authority. The system is greedy in terms of power. Since power is highly centralized in this system it is difficult for the people to enjoy justice in their surroundings.

Since they advocate a one party system where power is highly concentrated, the issues of individual choice, human rights, religious rights and freedom of speech are constrained in the name of the majority. This shows that socialism is not concerned with general human development but rather it is a movement for the control of wealth.

As we mentioned the complex needs of society can not be addressed only by economic distribution. Human beings need political power and authority distribution in order to enjoy justice and democracy in their surroundings and in their day to day lives. Socialism naturally does not invest much trust in individual responsibility.


Capitalism and the Redistribution of Wealth

Is redistribution a just practice in a Capitalist doctrine?

In a conservative capitalists view redistribution of wealth is unjust further it is an act of stealing wealth from the rich. The typical capitalist believes that competition is a just enough practice. The philosophy encourages making a fast track for people to bolt ahead so that those who work hard will be successful. In this system those who do not have enough stamina to keep up or even enough energy to run at all will be the losers. Some might even be trampled by the traffic of the race but the doctrine does not concern itself with the process or its consequences.  The only motivation is the success of winning the race and the reward of wealth that it brings with it.

The problem is when wealth does not get redistributed the gap between the rich and the poor grows.  As time goes by this tendency even brings about a psychological gap between citizens and this trend can destroy the justice system as a whole.

Moreover, lower classes do not have enough money to warm their own or other markets since money is concentrated in some areas rather than dispersed. In this crisis money will be stagnant and this can bring about a country-wide depression. This kind of conservative capitalism can be called AB-type capitalism because it is a universal receiver.

There are individuals who do not have a talent for making money but they have made their country beautiful by the contribution of their own talents. Their low capacity for making money disqualifies them from participating in the race of the conservative capitalist doctrine of greed. Since in this doctrine money is the measurement of success and the value of humanity is low, progress is concentrated in smaller and smaller enclaves while ghetto’s and impoverished neighborhoods take up the majority of the country’s landscapes.

In both typical socialism and typical capitalism redistribution does not exist to its full capacity.


So, where does Redistribution really exist?

Redistributive Capitalism

Redistributive capitalism fundamentally lies between the two extremes of socialism and capitalism. As we have seen both doctrines reject the idea of the distribution of wealth through the mechanisms of recirculation. This means that they do not believe in the principle of “give and take”. Redistributive capitalism however, believes in the redistribution of wealth from both sides or from the poor to the rich and vice versa.

In the doctrine of redistributive capitalism, as you might expect redistribution is seen as a just practice. In addition the value for humanity is higher than that of typical socialism or capitalism. There are some fundamentals considered to be the rationale to the distribution of wealth and redistributive capitalism.

In a redistributive capitalism milieu being rich is not an inherited position as much as it is a result of ability. Because of equal opportunity through out the system there is the chance to move from one class to another. In addition, the redistribution of wealth supports upward mobility of the working class. Therefore, for those who are interested in changing their status the door will be open by hard work and opportunities.

For typical socialism, the opportunity of changing economic strata is practically non-existent for the reason that the proverbial ladder of the economy is broken. In the capitalist doctrine, it is difficult to move to the middle class because the gap between the haves and the have-nots is exceedingly wide while opportunities are fewer.  Redistributive capitalism however, provides a realistic prospect to working people of moving from one class to another.


How is Redistribution Justified?

1.)            Growth to Development
Growth can not be sustained if it can not be converted into development at each interval or joint of its process. The significant difference between growth and development is that growth is a profit oriented process but development refers to the satisfaction of the growth.  Through the cycle of redistribution countries can be developing.

One of the mechanisms to change growth to development is realizing redistribution. The ultimate goal of growth is not an increase in monetary value but it reaches beyond. Roads, schools, hospitals, and more need to be maintained and to follow in modernization. These assets are energy generators for firms. When hospitals and schools are built healthy and well trained man power is produced.

Some developed countries might have slowed or stopped development because they haven’t utilized the redistribution of wealth to catalyze their economy.

2.)            Building Trust and Peace
In a given capitalist country in and among various economic strata, redistribution is the cement to building relationships of trust and peace. The poor support rich firms when they weaken or become bankrupt in the form of regressive taxation together with their humanistic contributions of knowledge or skill. When these rich firms ripen or when the poor get in trouble then wealth can be transferred so that the poor can become energized or revitalized. These relationships build trust and peace among citizens and can build nationalism as well. Redistribution is a guarantee to economic classes supporting each other.

3.)            Interdependence
In a capitalist society all economic strata are interdependent from each other although their existence is dependent on one another. The word rich or poor are relative terms. This relativity demonstrates to each class the reasons for their existence.

Redistribution gives long life to their interdependence. The more the society redistributes their wealth at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way the more their lives grow longer and more stable.

4.)            Responsibility
Poor people see the rich as economically responsible leaders. Those people who have the talent to make businesses through their innovative works have to be appreciated by the society. These people just because they are very rich can not wear 100 coats at once. Some of them live ordinary lives. I once heard the story of a wealthy man who lived a modest life, less even than that of the average citizen. He was always thinking of ways he could serve others. He took responsibility for himself by serving society. Wealthy people know that the more wealth they accumulate and the richer they become the more responsibilities they have. They are responsible for managing their wealth in order to benefit themselves and to benefit their country.

In a redistributive capitalist doctrine the rich are seen as a kind of social capital. The wealth of rich peoples is put to work to provide services to the poor and working class. On the other hand for the growth of science and technology economic power has to be concentrated. To attain better lives protecting and subsidizing private firms is of great importance.

5.)            Money Belongs to the Government
When we talk about wealth we usually measure it in terms of money. Money is the property of the society but individuals have the right to mange it in the ways they see fit.

This idea is well illustrated by using a simple example.  Think of the wealthiest person in your country.  Let’s say this person is Mr. X and Mr. X wants to burn 60,000,000 dollars to make his 60th birthday special. He wants to do this because to show how much he truly is the wealthiest person in his country. In this case Mr. X will be acting criminally, despite his stupidity, because he has broken the law. The logic is that although he has the right to manage his money in circulation but he can not destroy it. When he burns or damages his money that money will be out of circulation and because of this the society will lose its value or worth. Mr. X could spend his 60 million dollars for his birthday and no one would have the right to audit him but he could not burn his 60 million dollars.

Since money is naturally the property of the government the government can print it, devalue or revalue it, or the government can make tax laws for regressive or progressive taxation. This does not mean that the government is violating property rights. Properties are protected in a democratic society. Everyone has the right to manage and use his or her own wealth.

6.)            People have a stake in private firms
One of the rationales of redistribution of wealth is that either directly or indirectly people have a stake in private firms. No firm can become the wealthiest without the contribution of the workers. Workers will sometimes contribute their time, energy and knowledge. Money can not replace these contributions. Government gives loans to firms, people and government protect them and so on. All these contributions are considered to be a stake or retributive investment.


Types of Redistribution of Wealth

1.)                  Planned
As we mentioned before the government can plan either regressive or progressive taxation to transfer wealth from one concentration to another. Such plans can include changes in systems or reform in social institutions. Changes in the market structure, the production system, minimum wage, allocation of public funds, monetary policies, and so on are considered to be the tools for planned redistribution of wealth.

2.)                  Volunteer
In the redistributive capitalism milieu compassion and fairness are expected to become traditions of society. Those individuals or institutions who own wealth will not only contribute to the lower classes in their times of need nor when their firms bear fruit will they expect formal taxation from the government but rather by their own initiatives they will transfer wealth voluntarily. For example in the form of charities, scholarships, community development activities, and so on such practice is voluntary wealth transfer. The lower classes also support their firms by giving financial and non-financial support without the help of the government.

3.)                  Loan and Revolving loan
This type of redistribution of wealth takes place at a community or other micro level in the society where wealth can revolve within the community and groups in the form of loans. Firms or governments can also lend money or property to a given association or community and that wealth can revolve within the communities allowing community members to enhance their economic empowerment.

4.)            Job opportunities and promotion
One of the methods of redistribution of wealth is creating job opportunities.
                         
                  
                
   geletawzeleke@gmail.com


____
http://www.zehabesha.com/the-new-way-of-thinking-about-redistribution/

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Unbalanced Growth strategy potential for conflict in Ethiopia

TPLF and the unbalanced growth strategy – By Geletaw Zeleke


To help boost the economies of low income countries a development strategy named unbalanced growth theory was introduced by development theorists. With the use of this strategy select economic zones grow at rapid rates, while other economic zones experience stagnation or reduced growth as a result. The objective of this strategy is to concentrate wealth in special economic zones to make it easier to build momentum for breakthroughs in the overall development.
According to development theorist Professor Albert O. Hirschman it is vital to create deliberate imbalances in the economy of countries to accelerate development. This is especially true for those countries who may not have enough initial resources to create the big push needed on their own. The idea is that acceleration of growth will arise where there is unbalance. The ultimate goal of unbalanced growth strategy, importantly, is not to realize unbalanced development but to realize balanced development.
In fact this approach has worked as an economic model for some countries. For example, South Korea experienced this type of growth. In the 1970s, lacking resources to develop their country rapidly they selected areas to invest their wealth in, in order to boost their overall economy. As they planned they could develop specific economic zones and after that those areas would replicate themselves and be recreated in other industries. Within a few years Korean were able to develop their country and today Korea is a country that has achieved fair economic distribution.

In Ethiopia it appears the government and its fans are unofficially claiming that Ethiopia is experiencing unbalanced growth and because of its nature majority of the people can not presently feel the effects of development.  This translates to mean that it is not the right time to realize redistribution in the case of Ethiopia because concentrated wealth is not ripe enough for the overall development but for the future it will change citizen life.
 I think they believe all huge economic disparities are the results of the nature of the growth strategy that they are employing.
We have no problem with the science of unbalanced growth theory as far as it is implemented carefully. In my opinion the strategy of unbalanced growth can be useful for many low income countries but it can not work in the case of Ethiopia because of the following arguments.

1)   The political Setup
At the very beginning, to chose unbalanced growth strategy, their should be a conducive political environment and setup. In a country whose politics are shaped by tribes and where Ethnic Federalism is practiced there is not enough confidence in the circle of concentrated wealth. The nature of Ethiopian politics pushes citizens to identify themselves in terms of their cultural group and this tendency is also seen in the individuals who own and manage the concentrated wealth who also identify themselves in terms of their cultural groups.
Weak nationalism and bias to the tribe prohibit unbalanced growth strategy from succeeding. The nature of identity politics damages the psychological attachments of the people. It is difficult to concentrate wealth in the hands of small groups since nationalism is weaker. In a country that promotes identity politics this type of growth strategy can not be effective.

2)   Very Low Certainty About Redistribution

As we have said above the goal of unbalanced growth theory is to speed up development not to create economic classes. Ethiopian people do not have faith that wealth can be redistributed fairly after it has been ripened by unbalanced growth. Since the trust of people is very low they are not certain that concentrated wealth will be redistributed or given to develop the country. In a nation who politicizes geography and culture there is no guarantee for the people who work hard to concentrate wealth in specific economic zones.

3)   Corruption Culture

Taking a look at the Transparency International yearly reports a surprising fact is that since the Ethiopian Ethics and Anti-corruption Commission was established the Transparency International CPI (Corruption Perception Index) score is decreasing. In 2002 the CPI score was 3.5 after years it has decreased to 2.7 in 2010. Ethiopia also placed 60th in 2000 and after a decade it is placed 116th in the index. This shows that corruption is growing.
The irony is that GDP is growing and strangely corruption is growing simultaneously. This might indicate the type of corruption is more likely not of a competitive type but rather of a monopolistic type of corruption.
The problem is the risk is very high to implement unbalanced growth in this kind of country.
  4. The Theory Needs Independent Institutions
A guarantee for the choice of using the unbalanced growth development strategy is the existence of independent institutions. An independent banking system, independent court and the like are responsible for risk takers.
According to the World Prosperity Index Ethiopians have very low trust in these institutions.

“A lack of democratic ability and confidence blights the Ethiopian political system […] the judiciary lacks independence[…]there appears to be little respect for the rule of law and the country is notable for its poor regulatory environment for business, placing 101st in the index on this variable. Levels of confidence in the military and judiciaries are both very low. Ethiopians have few political rights, but 16% reported having voiced an opinion to a public official recently. Unsurprisingly, only 19% of the population believe that the electoral process is honest.” (2010; World Prosperity Index)

In such a country as Ethiopia, that lacks independent institutions, it is impossible to actualize unbalanced growth strategy.

4)   Article 39 vs. Unbalanced Growth

Ethiopia is most likely the only country which declares secession in its Constitution. This article is a potential problem to implement the unbalanced growth. There is no guarantee for the people that wealth will be returned for redistribution because this article practically declares it while creating psychological fragmentation among cultural groups at the same time.

5)   Potential for Conflict

If there are no independent institutions and if culture and geography are politicized then concentrated wealth can not be a development accelerator as it ought to be, rather, it becomes a potential for conflict among groups.
Lets take a look at the EFFORT (Endowment Fund For Rehabilitation Tigray). This organization is the wealthiest organization in Ethiopia. The wealth of the country is concentrated here. The problem is that the people believe that the wealth belongs to all Ethiopians but the TPLF official Mr. Sibehat Nega the former EFRT chairman declared that the organization belongs to the Tigray tribe but it is serving the whole people. This attitude creates a psychological gap and as a result people develop mistrust. This huge proportion of the countrys wealth could be a stimulant of politics. Since the leaders of this organizations are all from one tribe and these individuals are very high rank government officials it is difficult to trust in. The people have a well founded fear that this money can not be put to developmental activity rather it confined to a profit oriented monopolized organization. The group does not worry about development and service rather it is embezzlement in order to maintain the economic upper hand.
To sum up unbalanced growth strategy in the current general condition of Ethiopia is not only disadvantageous but also it is a harmful strategy.
                                                                Geletaw Zeleke
                                     geletawzeleke@gmail.com

Geletaw Zeleke's New Book *** ETHIOPIAN POLITICS የኢትዮጵያ ፖለቲካ

ይህ መጽሀፍ የማንነት ፖለቲካ እንዴትና ከየት እንደተነሳና ያለውን ችግሮች በዝርዝር ያስረዳል:: ዛሬ የኢትዮጵያ ሕዝብ ማህበረሰባዊ ግንኙነቶች ፈራርሰዋል። ደራሲው የሃገራችን መሰረታዊ ችግር የማህበረ ፖለቲካ ነው ይላል። ...