Article Summary: Exploring Synergies, Eradicating Poverty by Cristobal Kay

"The fight against hunger and poverty is also predicated on the creation of a world order that accords priority to social and economic development."                                                                                                                                                                                                  

       ~Lula de Silva

[Note to Reader: This writing assumes the causal links between poverty and hunger, given that food production exceeds population requirements and yet starvation still persists.]

                

                A developmental paradigm in which industry and agriculture are viewed as separate entities is a crutch in the understanding of state development and the eradication of poverty. It is commonly argued in discussing the evolution of the Industrial Revolution whether or not it was caused by agricultural improvement, and the mobilization of the resulting surplus in to industry, or vice versa. Cristobal Kay argues instead that it was a synergy between industry and agriculture, and that this framework for policymaking must be adopted by states today in order to eradicate poverty. Kay ’s theory proposes a solution to two common misperceptions in state development.

                ‘Agriculture first,’ the withholding of agricultural productivity surpluses for reinvestment in agriculture can stagnate industry and thus agricultural technological improvement and productivity, as well as leave the country with an insufficient industrial foothold in the competitive global economy. In contrast, the ‘Industry first’ concept can lead to an over-extraction of resources from the agricultural sector, thus stagnating agriculture and halting any industrial progress. Using the ‘Soviet industrialization debate’ as a case study for this concept, Kay argues that under Lenin the Soviet Union focused too heavily on rapid industrialization without investment towards increasing agricultural output within a distressed collective farming system, thus leading to the inability of peasant farmers to meet quotas for a growing urban and industrial populace. When quotas were enforced the peasants were left with inadequate resources to feed themselves leading to further agricultural erosion, thereby “killing the goose which laid the golden egg.”  

                South Korea and Taiwan, using a more synergistic approach, ignored neoliberal policy directions and used price discrimination and selective investment in agriculture, the Green Revolution’s agricultural industry, and labour-intensive consumer-good oriented industry to successfully distribute surpluses and effectively decrease inequality and poverty. Enabling such policies was a “redistributionist agrarian reform” which allowed for an egalitarian transfer of investment and technology from state and industry to agriculture. Kay argues Latin American countries would be in a similar position had they successfully carried out agrarian reform instead of focusing all their investment on the “large-scale commercial farm sector” while adhering to neoliberal policies reliant solely on free market mechanisms.

                Kay states that a synergistic industrial-agricultural paradigm for development leaves room for contextual differences; that we can “confront and come to terms with the diversity that exists in the real world – whatever uniform tendencies some abstract theories might suggest.” In analyzing developmental paths Kay presumes an export-oriented economy is essential, and assumes the necessary context of a global market. This is either more wise than arguing for a romanticized past of restrictive trade barriers, or more ignorant, in lacking discourse on the perceived, post hoc necessity and ever-presence of a globalized economy. Whatever the case, Kay argues successfully within the present context of globalization for a new, synergistic approach where urban-rural and industrial-agricultural lines are consistently being blurred.

                Ignoring, however, environmental debates about the sustainability of Green Revolution technology, which allowed for the export-driven surpluses and industrial-agricultural synergies in South Korea and Taiwan leaves Kay’s argument contextually dependent upon older, expansionist, pre-ecological paradigms of economy. If his model can overcome such an ecological context, then it would be wise to adopt it in replacement of current one-sided paradigms which claim universality in the processes of social and economic development which are necessary for eradicating poverty, and thus hunger.

Book Review: Big Thirst by Charles Fishman

            The Big Thirst explores man and society’s relationship to water and how it is seen, or not seen, and how placing a price on the only resource humans have labeled as free is the solution to present and future water crises and water wars. Fishman disproves the idea of a ‘global water crisis’ by explaining how each potential or ongoing crisis is local, and how an individual’s water use in America does not correlate to water availability in India. Thorough case studies of water shortages, debates, solutions and Plan B’s from Las Vegas casinos to Indian peasants to Australian coal mines gives Fishman a strong foundation for his arguments: We look at water as a common property, as free, as limitless, as the source of life and a force of death, and yet societies’ take no measure to properly manage, conserve, and allocate this vital resource. Fishman states, “We may well go directly from the golden age of water to the revenge of water.”

             An abundance of free water enabled Las Vegas to become a “water oasis”, allowed Australia to irrigate the majority of its state, and let Galveston, Texas glean over the fact that they did not have a Plan B. While the water saved from a low-flush toilet can not cut back the hours Indian women walk for water, it can be used for better purposes – replenishing our drying rivers and aquifers. As the island off of Texas realized after Hurricane Ike, a Plan B for water is necessary, and yet this has only been realized when Plan A, the only plan, fails. Instead of freely allocating water to whomever can pay the shipping and handling costs, Fishman argues that water needs to be treated economically, as if it were any other resource, as if it were “Money in the pipes.”

             On the other side of free water is India, where the idea of free water is still pervasive, but 24/7 water seems ludicrous and women and children wake up to water-walks instead of work or school. Lack of water management, of water security and pollution control essentially cripples the people and the economy. Understanding water and its sources as more than holy items is what is lifting new, “planned,” Indian cities from vicious cycles of poverty and disease.

             New systems of water management proposed and implemented by IBM include monitoring water like we do our oil. Where is there waste, where is there energy loss? Desalination plants, water monitoring systems, and wastewater recycling, however, all require intense capital. While United States’ metropolises and Australian drylands can afford such new and improved water management, places like India require outside investment. Fishman’s ideas of an economically based water system leaves many fearful of a dystopic future where only the rich get clean water. The basis of such a system however, would be a “first-glass” allocation in which fixed amounts are provided for drinking, as well as the environment. But limiting the discussion to any specifics, whether it be economics or reverse osmosis, misses the point entirely. His goal in Big Thirst is merely to talk about water and by doing so, “rescue water not so much from ignorance as from being ignored.”

              Water’s apparent limitlessness is a plague that has reached nearly every aspect of our natural society. From the buffaloes to the fish, from oil to water, perceptions of a resource as infinite slowly give way to depletion and extinction, as well as (hopefully) better understanding and management. Whether that can be accomplished before the herd or the school is gone, or the well is dry, is unfolding right now. Fish stocks are disappearing at never before seen rates, and efforts to combat their extinction at the hand of market forces are floundering. On the other side, efforts to combat water shortages and water wars are being fought by the juxtaposition of market forces. Although seemingly contrary in their approach, both reveal an increased awareness and understanding of the resource at hand, whether it be fish, or the waters in which those fish swim.

               Fishman states at the end of Big Thirst, “Many civilizations have been crippled or destroyed by an inability to understand water or manage it.” Skeptics such as Lomborg might argue, with facts of decreasing water usage in the U.S. and increasing supplies of clean drinking water to children, that water is not as assumedly important as the Big Thirst states. Whether or not humanity faces an upcoming water crises, or these are exaggerated figures as stated in Lomborg’s Skeptical Environmentalist, it seems most important to prioritize above all else our understanding of the resources which we are dependent. The capital and the labor to be spent on urgent water programs is not the first argument. The initial discourse must be on awareness, and then education, and then action.  

                An understanding of the soil is needed for an agricultural program, an understanding of fish stocks is needed before a fish conservation program, and an understanding of the basic life force of water is absolutely necessary before any water system is to be implemented. However, humanity already created water infrastructures without this knowledge, and the events unfolding now, in the form of Young’s “water glass” paradigm or Pat Mulroy’s reduction solutions, will reveal just how great a value we want to place on this resource.

Project: Food Diary

Day 1

9:30am One egg, over easy, over sautéed kale and red cabbage on top of a flour tortilla. Cooked in vegetable oil with salt, black pepper, and Creole seasoning (garlic, onion, red pepper, etc.) Small glass of HyVee not-from-concentrate grapefruit juice.

11:00am One cup of black coffee.

3:00pm Two small flour tortillas, each filled with sautéed kale, red onions and red cabbage. Vegetable oil with salt, pepper, and cumin. Glass of 2% Vitamin D milk.

6:45pm Pizza: White crust, pre-made tomato sauce, spinach, mozzarella, Sriracha. Glass of water

10:00pm Half of a wrap I made in the caf and snuck out: Large flour tortilla, green peppers, cheddar cheese, lettuce (presumably iceberg), radishes, coleslaw (presumably white cabbage, carrots, mayo, sugar). Glass of water

Day 2

9:30am One poached egg over breakfast potatoes made the day before: red potatoes, onions, vegetable and olive oil, salt, pepper, Creole seasoning. Glass of milk.

3:00pm Other half of the wrap from Day 1, added Sriracha.

6:30pm Bowl of soup made a few days ago: onion, celery, carrots, V8 juice, sardines, salt, pepper, olive oil, basil (dried), garlic salt, sugar. Cup of coffee, milk and sugar.

11:00pm Bowl of vanilla yogurt with half an apple. 

             

                There are an infinite array of ways to look at this food diary: As a consumer, producer, dietician, biologist, psychologist, anthropologist, sociologist, or historian; from the standpoint of self identity or group identity; from a social, economic, or political perspective; within a local, national, or global context. But it is just this conundrum of choices that brings to light the complexity hidden within our most basic and universal act... choosing what to eat.

                The convergence of Warren Belasco’s three prongs - Convenience, Responsibility and Identity - reveals who I am and where I stand. Could I scourge for food in the urban or semi-urban jungle with their planned and scattered natural landscapes? Would I find anything to eat that could sustain me? It is out of convenience and habit that I find myself within the comfort of a supermarket, a fairly modern and international bazaar. Hunting and gathering through the aisles, scavenging the shelves, reading the labels: This is my weekly forage.

                As you can see I stick to several main ingredients or food items: onions, cabbage, kale, celery, carrots, mushrooms, black beans, coffee, canned tuna, bread, tortillas; vegetable oil, olive oil, butter, milk; salt, pepper, cumin, sugar, and a spice mix. Even the fact that I have water at hand whenever the need arises says something about the context in which I live. I am provided with a refrigerator to store my foods and a gas stove to heat them; pots and pans to cook with and utensils to aid in the process.

                The fact that I choose, what I believe to be, such simple food products – as compared to pre-made and processed foods, fine cuts of meat, poultry or seafood, a worldly variety of spices and herbs – highlights my struggle between eating sustainably as I see it (responsibility), lack of time and money (convenience), and my personal taste as well as preference for cooking (identity). 

                Cooking enables a sense of control over food, something which has been lost within the agro-industrial context in which we live. But is this not self-deception? Do we still not all, including myself, rely on supermarkets, on fossil fuels, on refrigeration, kitchenware companies, and transportation? I put salt and pepper on everything, cook everything in fats, use flour-based items as most of my meals’ foundations, and more importantly, feed only myself in each meal. The historical context and progression of merged cuisines, individualism, and the more recent notion of sustainability founded on man’s fear of extinction all come alive with every meal I entertain. That there even exists a movement towards sustainability reveals a deep-seeded biological and psychological drive towards long-term species continuance. Can you argue that altruism is an integral piece of continual existence? How much can we truly survive and function without others, and are we not then a tightly woven mesh of personalities, knowledge, and bodies? Can such generalities, observations and conclusions be brought about from other everyday items? Or is food, its production and distribution, the treasured key to understanding the core paradigms upon which a civilization, a culture, or a community rests?