Infernal Ramblings
A Malaysian Perspective on Politics, Society and Economics

Abundance is Nothing

Written by johnleemk on 7:03:20 am Mar 25, 2007.
Categories:

Many of the world's developing countries are among the world's richest. They often have the most people, and to top it off, they have the most resources too. They want nothing when it comes to human resources, and they certainly don't need anything more than the oil/diamond/forest reserves they've been blessed with.

So why are these countries all so poor? Why are some of the world's worst basket cases also some of the world's richest, in the sense that they have such great potential for development and growth? Because natural resources are a crutch.

This might seem odd to you. After all, the orthodox understanding of economics is that the market is a great mover and shaper of progress. If we unleash the market system on a country, any country, the thinking goes, we will see progress. Unfortunately, this isn't true.

People are shaped by incentives. Most of them time, the market sends the right signals and thus creates incentives for progress. The fellow who builds the better mousetrap gets more mice, and thus has an incentive to move forward.

But what incentive does the diamond miner have to progress? What incentives do they have? All they are geared towards doing is extracting more material from their country's natural resources, and maybe processing it. That's not real progress — it's just the illusion of progress.

True progress is when you add value. True progress is building a better mousetrap and growing the potential for mice-catching, rather than building more of the same old mousetraps. In the short run, you may be able to catch more mice, but in the long run, you haven't progressed at all.

Many developing countries, especially in Africa, have fallen prey to the trap of abundance. They have the most diamonds in the world, and some of them such as Nigeria are also powerful players in the oil markets because of their immense supply. Yet they remain some of the world's worst basket cases.

This is because they haven't had an incentive to add value. They haven't had an incentive to come up with new uses for diamonds, or to find ways to better use petroleum, or to otherwise actually grow the potential of their economy.

The only incentive they've had is to mine more diamonds, drill for more oil, and slash and burn more forests. In the short run, this has led to obscene amounts of wealth concentrated in the hands of those lucky few who owned the right parcels of land. (Or, in many cases, those lucky few who confiscated the right parcels of land from their former owners.)

Because the rewards are apportioned according to luck, rather than skill or ability to add value, it's not surprising that developing economies with abundant natural resources have been unable to see real progress. They have the illusion and trappings of progress, but not the reality. There's no incentive to really move forward.

An over-reliance on natural resources, then, is often fatal to an economy. Indeed, abundance is often suicide because it drives complacency, not progress. Countries traditionally scarce in resources have often been more successful in developing — Japan and Singapore are just two examples.

It's obviously not easy to generalise, because each country has a different economic situation. But in many cases, it does not seem unreasonable to believe that abundance is nothing. What matters are incentives to add value and grow the economic pie, and abundance often turns out to be a disincentive for such progress.


If you'd like to keep informed about updates to the site, consider subscribing to our web feed:

Infernal Ramblings is a Malaysian website focusing on current events and sociopolitical issues. Its articles run the gamut from economics to society to education.

Infernal Ramblings is run by John Lee. For more, see the About section. If you have any questions or comments, do drop him a line.


Comments

Thoughts? Comments? Discuss this and other ramblings at the forums.
(Alternatively, contact the author privately.)

Related comments from forum thread "Medicinal Monopolies":
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind
Head Administrator
Posts: 949
IP Logged

Posted at 6:37:34 am Nov 2, 2005
One of the major problems I see facing modern medicine is the appropriate pricing of medicines. You see, it costs a lot to develop modern drugs - you not only have to pay for researching and marketing it, but also for test trials, etc. Furthermore, it also involves a lot of investment in time on the part of medical companies - a lot of time, on the scale of decades, even. If a drug doesn't pan out by say, not getting approval from the US Food and Drugs Administration, they may have wasted millions of dollars on nothing. As a result, medicinal companies need to charge higher and higher prices to recoup their costs.

However, to be able to charge such high prices, the demand for the drug must not be very elastic (the customers must not be turned off by a huge rise in the price of the drug). And in a market where other drug companies can be selling similar medicines, demand tends to be rather, well, elastic. This makes it financially unfeasible to develop drugs, especially complicated ones like those for AIDS or cancer. After all, what's the point when your competitor will be selling the same drug as yours under a different name within a few months? You might call this market failure, but the market has done nothing wrong; it's just impossible to profit from developing complex drugs.

Therefore, the governments of the world have stepped in to encourage drug development by awarding 20-year patents to drug discoverers. For 20 years, the company that discovered the drug will be the only one in control of who gets the drug - it's a monopoly. Now, this might be a good thing, except for the fact that once again, you've got the nasty market to contend with - the prices are high, remember? With diseases that affect mainly the poor, such as AIDS, this can cost millions of lives for the sake of a few dollars.

Sure, you could argue that the government could step in, but how? If it forces companies to lower their prices, there will no longer exist any incentive to develop new drugs. If the government itself subsidises drugs, there will be an incredible cost to taxpayers that many would find unconscionable. (Hey, remember the prices were artificially jacked up by the gifting of a monopoly to the drug manufacturers?) Arguably, socialism has come full circle - the interference in the market has come back to bite socialists in the ass. (Even though the measure is pro-business, remember it interferes with the workings of a free market.)

Some would argue that the monopoly is a natural monopoly, and that we should step aside and allow the free market to work. Such is the economic orthodoxy, but it's easy to say this to an audience of educated (and probably not dieing or starving) professionals. It's another thing to say this to the face of those who will face a struggle with cancer or AIDS for every day of the rest of their lives. A humane but practical solution has to be found.

Of course, there are also the even more extremist who would question that statement. After all, worshipping the omnipotent, omniscient free market is the "in" thing of economics nowadays. However, anyone who has ever bothered to read and comprehend an undergraduate economics textbook knows such a "free market is always right" stance to not only be wrong but downright dangerous. The free market is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Economics teaches that the market exists only to produce and allocate goods and services. Once you have understood this, all the romance and mysticism of the free market are gone. But if you don't stop there and dig further into your undergraduate textbook, you'll find that the market isn't even always right when it comes to the distribution of goods and services - indeed, it can be horribly, horribly wrong. That's why the term "market failure" has been coined. The market fails when it allows a monopoly or oligopoly to erect barriers to entry, when it allows imperfect information, or when it allows externalisation of costs. The market is an imperfect tool - a good one, mind you, but nevertheless, rough around the edges.

Thus, we return to the original question - how do we provide drugs at an affordable cost without stifling the incentive to research and manufacture such drugs? We've struck subsidies and the outright removal of the patent system without replacing it off our list, so what's next? One common solution is to lower the length of the patents so that the drug recipe will be released into the hands of other companies sooner. This is just tinkering with the system, and offers no real solution. Furthermore, by lowering the length of the patent, the incentive to research costly drugs will also dissipate somewhat.

So we have to cross that one off our list. What's next? Well, here's a thought - an impractical one, but still a thought - drug bounties. Simply, governments would award the first one to come up with a drug that cures AIDS/cancer/whatever a certain amount of money, commensurate with the importance of the drug. This of course has its drawbacks - to be effective, the taxpayers will again have to open their wallets, and the price may be difficult to optimise (how do you know whether you're paying too much or too little for the cure for cancer?).

So, as you can probably tell by now, there is no real answer. There's no solution - at least, one isn't anywhere in sight in the near future. Still, it's quite the challenge, and you mark my words - the man who discovers how to optimise the production and distribution of drugs will win the Nobel Prize in economics. It's quite simple - in this case, there has been no market failure. So now we just have to figure out how to stimulate costly drug production without the help of the market. Well, it's not that simple. But you get my point.
Last five replies (5 comments not shown):
jasoneight
Member
Posts: 3
IP Logged
Posted at 12:43:23 pm Apr 10, 2007
The article in the Sun mentioned that farmers in Malaysia will suffer if the MUFTA is signed but there are no details provided.

I remember some NGOs and other individual parties claimed in the press that our local farmers would be affected by the FTA, in that there will be an influx of rice from the US in the local market after the FTA and consequently affect local farmers.

But in fact, this is not the case.

In reality, rice production in Malaysia is not enough and we have to import 30 percent of our rice. This comes mainly from Vietnam which accounts for 420,000 tonnes or RM415 million worth of our rice import and from Thailand which accounts for some 300,00 tonnes of rice imports. This compares with only an import of 385 tonnes of rice from the US worth RM1.36 million.

If at all, then Malaysian rice is in fact competing with the rice from Vietnam and Thailand as the grade is the same, and not with that from the US, which is of a different grade and caters mainly to the Japanese and Koreans in the country.

Malaysian local white rice costs about RM2.20 per kilo while the rice from the US costs about RM10.25 per kilo. It is therefore clear that the rice from the US cannot compete with the local rice based on simple pricing and economics.


johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind
Head Administrator
Posts: 949
IP Logged
Posted at 1:23:48 pm Apr 10, 2007
Hm...nice research there, but your comments suspiciously resemble those of some government officials who have commented about the FTA, right down to the wording. :p
jasoneight
Member
Posts: 3
IP Logged
Posted at 1:34:34 pm Apr 11, 2007
The facts speak for themselves - plain and simple - not like those who mouth other sweeping, general and emotional statements.

These facts don't get reported in full often enough as they are not sensational and do not help sell papers.It is more dramatic to say that FTA destroy lives and take away our sovereignty.

Too often we forget how the Hong Kong economy was built.
zedtransf0rm
Member
Posts: 2
IP Logged
Posted at 10:21:04 pm Oct 26, 2008
The principle of comparative advantage has been seriously challenged recently. David Ricardo's original assumption was that international capital movement was unlikely, and was restrained in the same way that land and labour, the other factors of production, were. See sections 7.18 and 7.19 of his book.

However, this is no longer the case, and it is questionable whether comparative advantage exists in today's climate of unrestrained movement of capital
zedtransf0rm
Member
Posts: 2
IP Logged
Posted at 10:26:42 pm Oct 26, 2008
Free Trade Agreements are not the same thing as the International Trade envisaged by Ricardo. For example, it can be argued that the maintenance of tariffs against the import of grain into the USA affects the price of exported commodities.

The FTA is really a doctrine, not an economic actuallity.

There were massive arguments raised against Intellectual Property Rights in the development of Free Trade Theory during the 1800's, and the assertions were supported by theory. However, the emerging monopolists soon removed such discussion from the theory.

We don't see much theory, unless supported by a regime of political ideology. Ecelecticism is not logical


Latest:
Palin: A Politician of the People?
Popular:
Ending the Malaysian Culture Wars

Most Recently Read

  1. Sepet, A Malaysian Movie
  2. A Prime Minister for the Times?
  3. Nationalised National Airlines?
  4. Conspiracy Theories Are Illogical
  5. How About an NEP for All Malaysians?
  6. Malaysia, Epitome of Social Immobility
  7. Civil Law and Common Law
  8. Taiwan Earthquake Knocks Out Internet in Malaysia
  9. Culture is Not Static
  10. YouTube and Bridging the Cultural Gap
Latest active forum topics
Quoth the webserver...
The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts.
— Edmund Burke
Poll
Sorry, only registered users may vote. Please register or login.

There are currently no polls running.