Why is Africa Poor?

[MMMark]

Mon. 10/03/22 11:05 EDT
.post #18

Some rankings from the page you linked to, using your examples of wealth metrics:

Botswana/total countries:

• per capita income: 92/224

• infant mortality: 141/224

• life expectancy at birth: 61.85 years 178/224

• literacy rate: 81.2% (2003 est.)

World literacy rate: 82% (2005 est.)

other literacy rates, examples of low and high extremes:

Afghanistan: 28%; Burkina Faso: 21.8%; Chad: 25%; Niger: 28.5%; Benin: 34.7%; Senegal: 39.3%; Sierra Leone: 35.1%; Somalia: 37.8%;

Georgia, Greenland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway: 100%

note: over two-thirds of the world’s 785 million illiterate adults are found in only eight countries (Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan); of all the illiterate adults in the world, two-thirds are women; extremely low literacy rates are concentrated in three regions, the Arab states, South and West Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, where around one-third of the men and half of all women are illiterate (2005 est.)

@Southern

But when you look at african populations outside of Africa they are relatively poor. This is in western nations where both European, African, and Asian populations are subject to the same economic and political systems.

@Southern

So I used an example where different populations of people when exposed to the same institutions have different outcomes.

Percentage (and numbers in thousands) below 100% of poverty, for the U.S.A., from the page you linked to:

• all races: 13.2% (39,829)
• White alone, not Hispanic: 8.6% (17,024)
• Asian alone: 11.8% (1,576)
• Hispanic (of any race) 23.2% (10,987)
• Black alone: 24.7% (9,379)

@MMMark

3. To what extent what you are saying is true.

@Southern

3. I dont know what you mean.

For example, you provided statistics for the U.S.A., but the extent of your earlier statement (“…in western nations…”) was more sweeping. Is your statement true in western nations, or true just for the U.S.A.?

As another example of “extent,” are Blacks significantly poorer than Whites and Asians, or just marginally poorer?

As a third example of “extent,” are significantly more or just marginally more Blacks poorer than Whites and Asians?

Three more points:

1. Saying “blacks in the U.S.A. are relatively poor” differs significantly from saying “…African populations outside of Africa … are relatively poor,” which differs again from saying “(African nation X) is one of the poorest nations on earth.”

2. Suggesting (as you seem to be) that genetic factors and poor economic performance are irrevocably correlated paints a rather bleak picture, in terms of solutions for improvement. While we’re stuck with the genetic hand we’re dealt, economically harmful institutional factors can, at least, be exchanged for economically beneficial ones.

3. You imply that, given the same institutional factors, Black populations don’t perform as well, economically, as Asian and white populations. Even if we assume this is true (and I’m not convinced it’s true), this does not explain why some (Black) African populations are very poor, while others do better. Botswana, for example, seems to be doing pretty well, seems to be improving, and improving fast. This contradicts the “genetic factors” theory, and supports the “institutional factors” theory.