Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Dr Andrew Dorward, Imperial College at Wye
I would like to offer a point of clarification
regarding my answer to the question raised by Tony Worthington[3].
Mr Worthington suggested that "there is no answer" for
Malawi, and I concurred, in that even if a process of development
as discussed earlier in the session were to lead to increased
food production and security (through escape from the coordination
trap in poor rural areas, higher maize production due to use of
inorganic and organic technologies, and broad based growth in
the rural economy), it is still not clear how the national economy
would be able to earn the foreign exchange needed to finance the
import of fertiliser: long term budgetary subventions may continue
to be necessary. This answer presents the situation as we see
it now, and is an honest recognition of the very real challenges
we face. On its own, however, it presents an overly pessimistic
view, which might be seen as an excuse for inaction. This was
not my intention, and three further points need to be made. First,
even if under this scenario budgetary subventions continue to
be needed into the foreseeable future, this will still be a considerable
and worthwhile improvement on the current situation if household
food security is assured for the majority of the Malawian population.
Second, the development of a more dynamic rural economy will both
"buy time" (and there may be technological, institutional
or political developments in the next 30 years that will offer
new opportunities to break out of this situation) and will itself
generate a new set of growth dynamics with potential to stimulate
new opportunities that we cannot at present predict. Third, we
should not underestimate the potential and resilience of the Malawian
people to combat these difficulties if they begin to have a broader
and more stable resource base from which to work.
Dr Andrew Dorward
January 2003
3 Ev 94 Back
|
