Applied Economics and Politics (TTP's)

[Surferbeetle]

War is a conflict between various parties who employ a wide variety of warfare methods in order to impose their will upon their opponents. I understand War best as a system which is comprised of various sub-systems. Security, Economics, and Politics are inter-related subsystems which can be used to describe a larger conflict system. As with any model of reality it's best to keep in mind the heuristic all models are wrong but some are useful.

IMHO we as an institution display a good understanding of Security as a standalone system, however, we are just now beginning to realize that Economic and Political systems can significantly impact the Security system. This statement is evidenced by the reocurring need for one-off designs which have been constructed by various actors. This appears to be the result of our (the institution that is the USG, or at least, all of the elements fielded to address the 'problem' found in Iraq and Afghanistan) working without the benefit of a shared understanding of the underlying principles, definitions, roles, responsibilities, and requirements which comprise Economic and Political systems.

In line with the above observations it has been my experience that open source FMs are very, very thin on Economics and Politics TTP's for USG units which work within the Operating Environment found in Full-Spectrum Operations. Since I can't find what I need in the open source FM's of which I am aware of I have expanded the scope of my search. My search for a deeper understanding has included completing a graduate degree, participating in the Socratian experience that is SWJ over the last few years, and practicing what I learn in my small sphere of influence.

Upon further reflection, it's a long-winded way of stating the purpose of the thread.

Topic Area: Agriculture
Geographic Area: Zambia
Focal Question: Has Zambia's Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E) approach to agricultural expansion facilitated sustainable development?
Sources:
(1) Bezuneh, M., Ames, G.C.W., and Mabbs-Zeno, C., 1995. "Sustainable agricultural development using a farming systems approach in Zambia". Ecological Economics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 149-156.
(2) World Bank, 1980-1994. World Bank Development Report. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Reviewer: Marc Small, Colby College '96

According to the World Bank, over the last twenty years agricultural production in Zambia has accounted for, on average, only fourteen percent of total GDP. In comparison, industrial production and manufacturing, combined, have made up approximately eighty three percent of total GDP over the last twenty years. Clearly, the agricultural industry is not one of the most economically powerful industries in Zambia. Consequently, the Zambian government has neglected the agricultural industry in order to pay more attention to the politically and economically influential industries such as manufacturing and industrial production.

Since the 1970's, Zambia has relied on simple, relatively inexpensive agricultural research programs to enhance agricultural productivity. In the early stages of the research programs, research was conducted in order to develop productivity enhancing technologies (i.e. fertilizers, pesticides and capital intensive crops). During this period, research took place on research stations, which did not imitate the typical conditions of a Zambian farmer's fields. In general, the research programs were designed by wealthy bureaucrats, who were only interested in fast results, and short term productivity gains.

By the late 1970's, the Zambian Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development recognized that the needs of small scale and traditional farmers were not being appropriately addressed by the previously implemented research programs. In 1978, with the help of CGIAR (The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research), the Zambian government implemented the Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E) approach to agricultural development.

The FSR/E approach to agricultural development involves development and implementation of production technologies for the traditional and small scale farming sectors. The FSR/E methodology relies on provincial Adaptive Research Planning Teams (ARPT) to carry out the appropriate farming system research. Each provincial ARPT has at least one agronomist, one economist, and one research extension liaison officer, who acts as the middleman between the farmer and the ARPT. In addition, each team is supported by a national ARPT rural sociologist and nutritionist (Bezuneh et al. 151).

Although the Zambian FSR/E approach to agricultural development has achieved some success, there is little indication that the FSR/E program promotes sustainable agriculture. The FSR/E program, like Zambia's original research programs, has continued to emphasize fast results and the meeting of farmers short term needs. Productivity gains have often come through the expansion of cultivated land. Far too often, this expansion has been into marginally productive areas that are susceptible to soil erosion. Also, the Adaptive Research Planning Teams have placed too much emphasis on developing environmentally harmful, capital intensive technologies such as toxic fertilizers and pesticides. According to the World Bank, fertilizer consumption in Zambia more than doubled between 1970 and 1987. Not enough emphasis has been placed on developing "farming systems that are compatible with the particular environmental attributes constraining small scale producers" (Bezuneh et al. 153).

[Wargames Mark]

I recommend looking at Hong Kong's development and the policies of John Cowperthwaite.

Economic growth occurs most efficiently when individuals pursue their own aims through voluntary exchange. The role of government is to provide rule of law and security. Rule of law and security protect investment and provide an environment in which individuals are willing to go out and build stuff or go out and provide services to each other.

If the goal is economic development and prosperity, then reducing the fiscal burden of government, reducing regulation, and ensuring effective rule of law and security will set the conditions for such development to occur. Nobody tells the individuals that make up the population what to do, they just go out and do it, in pursuit of their own interests. The result is high efficiency growth.

If the goal is control of the population, and you are willing to sacrifice a (potentially big) degree of economic development and prosperity in order to achieve that control, then government intervention is the way to go. Subsidies and government-run social services develop dependency of the targeted population on the government that controls those subsidies and services, giving the government a handle with which to grasp hold of the people. If people are dependent upon the government for food distribution, then the government could hardly have a more tight rein on the population. Control of housing, healthcare, and employment would help also. (Again, we're talking about a goal of increasing central government control of the population, rather than economic growth.)

If rule of law and security are lacking, then regardless of the other policies in place (laissez faire or interventionist), there will be minimal economic development, at least of a productive type from the perspective of a developed country. Without rule of law and security, resources are distributed by banditry and allocated by the whim of thugs and thieves. No sane person invests capital or personal effort in such a place.

[Fuchs]

That was a nice recap of capitalist ideology.
At the same time, it's hopelessly over-optimistic. I think it's appropriate to call it naive, too.

I can consider your take on the role of government-run social services only as typical "American". You'd be laughed at the average German forum for such a text due to its typical American social=socialist=fear!!! slant.
No dictator has ever followed such a long-winded and slow path. They simply set up a domestic intelligence service, round up potential opposition and then they have control. No major economic changes are necessary.

Without rule of law and security, resources are distributed by banditry and allocated by the whim of thugs and thieves. No sane person invests capital or personal effort in such a place.

Except those who recall that you can hire guns, of course.
Actually, Europe lacked the rule of law until a few decades, up to about a century ago.
The pre-19th century systems didn't even come close to today's understanding of "rule of law" and the 19th century systems badly discriminated in favour of the establishment (thus providing no universal rule of law either). Much of Western Europe was under authoritarian or outright dictatorial control will the fourties, Spain even till the death of Franco.
How did we get to this point without ever investing till the 20th century?
We didn't - people don't consume everything just because investments are risky. They still save much, and savings~investments in macroeconomics.
Such a new thing as "rule of law" can hardly have been a condition for more than "minimal economic development".

- - - - -

Many conditions need to be met for a rapid economic growth or industrialisation along the market economy model. Few countries meet these and many of those who once met them don't meet them any more for perfectly normal reasons.
Planned economy coupled with central dictatorial authority proved able to lead to rapid economic growth, even with little (yet crucial) outside help.

In either case you get the most growth if the country has a much higher potential than actual economy. A well-educated, experienced, healthy population with a minimum of security & stability and a useful monetary system can produce extreme growth.
See Solow and Ramsey growth models: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_growth_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solow_growth_model
Examples are post-WW2 Italy, Germany and Japan as well as developing countries that industrialised based on a sound education & health basis - Taiwan, South Korea, PR China post-'80.
The planned economy approach on the other hand managed to pull off strong growth and rapid initial industrialisation even without meeting all those conditions - examples are the inter-war Soviet Union (especially during the 30's) and PR China (pre-'80). Nevertheless, it requires some conditions be met; see the failure in Tanzania and many other small developing countries.

Cuba with its health and education system is an economy miracle in the waiting queue. It lacks the resources and export markets for a planned economy economic growth, but it has the right ingredients for a market economy growth (less the entrepreneurship middle class).

- - - - -

"Efficiency" is a poor metric in regard to economic growth. You cannot measure it. You can measure rapidity, though - and the rapidity of growth depends more on the variables than on the system.

- - - - -

Just in case someone thinks that I'm a covert commie from Eastern Germany; I was born in Western Germany and did my economics degree at a Western German University.

[Dayuhan]

No dictator has ever followed such a long-winded and slow path.

Venezuela is a good example of a government using dependence-building dole-outs to achieve and sustain support. Works pretty well until the candybag runs out, or in Venezuela's case until oil production starts plunging because you're using the revenue for politics instead of putting it back into the industry that lays the golden eggs.

Wouldn't have worked nearly as well without oil in the picture, or without very high oil prices keeping the candybag full. Certainly not a very good way to build an economy, but your average populist demagogue is less interested in building an economy than in maintaining personal control.

There is no universal path to economic development. What works in one place may not work in another, and there are always tradeoffs: nothing ever works perfectly anywhere. Fundamentalism in economics - whether capitalist, socialist, or any other sort - is as dangerous as it is in politics, religion, or anywhere else.

In terms of Surferbeetle's economic systems, I'd only point out that these systems, like political systems, have to grow. They can be cultivated, but they cannot be installed. We can't bring an economy in a box, any more than we can bring a government in a box. Since people will always create an economy, it's often useful to focus on identifying and addressing obstacles to economic development, both governmental and private.

[Fuchs]

Venezuela doesn't even come close to what he wrote.


I submit that economic development is a too slow feature for a COIN strategy. Or maybe it's just me and others are fine with 10-15 year occupation campaigns?


Military leaders need to know a few simple messages about the economy in my opinion - like these:

- Don't interfere in black markets except arms markets. That's the police's job.

- Don't interrupt the flow of civilian goods, help the population to keep them flowing. Producers need to supply their markets and the demanding people depend on deliveries. Wealth depends on the access to a choice of markets.

- Listen to civilians about their economic problems. You might be able to fix some easily.

- There needs to be a functioning monetary system. It's unimportant whether that's based on national currency, foreign currency, cigarettes, chewing gums or shiny stones. It it works - don't fix it. That's a politician's job if anyone's.

- Impose restrictions (check points, limiting access to settlements with markets, blocking streets, ...) only after taking economic effects into account.

- Take into account that you might crowd out local production if foreigners flood the region with foreign goods (like food, clothes, vehicles, seeds).

...

And others. It's too late here for smart ideas, good night.

[Dayuhan]

Venezuela doesn't even come close to what he wrote.

He wrote this:

Subsidies and government-run social services develop dependency of the targeted population on the government that controls those subsidies and services, giving the government a handle with which to grasp hold of the people.

That seems a reasonable description of what poor Hugo is trying to do, the key factor of course being that in Venezuela the subsidies and social services are specifically designed to maintain dependency and control.

I would certainly agree that military leaders an organizations should minimize interference in economic matters.