I think my first ‘wow’ in the book was the realization that Stiglitz might be a constructivist. It felt good. This is probably because my reading of the book is informed by international relations and political science discipline rather than economics.  In this light, I could not stop my mind from mapping one coherent argument throughout the book that ‘inequality is caused by uncompetitive market economy sustained by politics through construction of ideas that are embedded within the society’. These ideas are meant to color the presence of 1% super rich population as not only natural but also a prerequisite for economic survival and as an incentive for hard work.

In ten chapters Stiglitz supports his arguments with empirical evidence and economic theories but with a simple language that an ordinary reader can understand. Although the book has the USA as its main focus, one can argue that the USA is only a case in that the knowledge gained from the book can be generalized to understand issues of inequality in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa. This, for me, is because the negative impacts of neoliberalism are felt in every country that embraces its policies. In fact, throughout the chapters, Stiglitz gives examples from different countries around the globe. He also compares some of the policies of EU and those of USA. All in all, he shows how policies around the world have favored the rich financial sector at the cost of the majority of citizens.

As I am in the process of trying to understand and writing a book on why poverty persists amidst high economic growth rates in Tanzania, Stiglitz book has been invaluably insightful to my understanding of the issues of inequality. My Stiglitz’ book copy is full of notes and lines on sentences that may explain the situation in Tanzania. Such is rent seeking problem, in which Stiglitz dedicated many pages. In fact, while reading the book, I kept asking myself, is there any need to write the book anymore while Stiglitz has already given an explanation to the core problem. The answer to this question highlights some gaps in the ‘Price of Inequality’. These include the need to have more contextual analysis of inequality issues in other countries. For example the main problems in the USA are mortgage crisis and unemployment.  These might not be the main issues in developing countries that also face what economists call ‘dual economy’ (i.e. inequality). Corruption, which Stiglitz has not (at least explicitly) highlighted as an issue in the USA, may be one of the biggest contributory inequality factors in developing countries.

At some point I felt like Stiglitz does not have much problem with market economy as long as it fairly competitive. In this he criticizes scholars such as Milton Friedman who bluntly support market economy without considering ‘externalities’ or uncompetitive factors such as rents and implicit subsidies to financial sectors and corporations. He thus seems to be fine with an ideal fair market economy. Although I am yet to be convinced on this (since I do not think the market economy will ever be fair), this echoes what Amartya Sen recently said on Adam Smith and also Deborah Boucoyannis ground-breaking article on why Adam Smith thought the market should produce wealth without steep inequality.

In connection to the above point, I, at one time, felt as if Stiglitz contradicted himself when he maintained that ‘for if globalization is not managed better than it has been, there is a real risk of a retreat, into protectionism or forms of begger-thy-neighbor policies’ (p.348) and then in the immediate next pages he is concerned with the imbalance trade (export vs. imports) in the USA. How then will the USA restore balance of payment if not through protectionism? That’s my humble question. The question was (I guess) steered by Ha Joon Chang’s book on Bad Samaritans in which he seems to support protectionism especially in developing economies.

As to any work of great authors, I feel very incapable of reviewing Stiglitz masterpiece. Nevertheless, in reflection to it, it is worthy noting the ethical and moral narrative that Stiglitz, a Nobel Price Economist, is bringing to our understanding of the world. Due to positivistic nature of economics and political science, scholars of those fields have often ignored the role of ideas including ethic values in their analysis. This is mainly due to difficulty in measuring such variables. Thus, it is impressive to see one of the most respected and influential economists tackling such issues and empirically describing their role in sustaining an economic system that enriches only a few (1%) at the cost of many (99%).  In this light, Stiglitz is arguable ideological and this is evident from his many counter arguments that would qualify with “The Rights would argue…”

In relations to underlining issues of ethics, Stiglitz boldly highlight the importance of trust. He observed that ‘throughout history the economies that have flourished are those where a man’s word is his honor, where a handshake is a deal…without trust business deals based on an understanding that the complex details will be worked out later are no longer feasible’. (p. 152)

Before starting (or is it continuing?) to mumble, I will stop here and instead urge everyone who is interested in reforming the dominant unfair world economic system to read the ‘Price of Inequality’. It is crucial to understanding the greatest security threat (in the eyes of Copenhagen School’s New Security Agenda) in our current world, which is Inequality.

Written by Samuel Ndandala*

Some years ago, I stumbled upon a book whose title enticed my appetite; ‘The End of Poverty’. I was curious because I really hate poverty. The rift between the developing world and the developed world has always fascinated me. Why is Switzerland centuries ahead of Swaziland? Are Africans just intellectually inferior and prone to wars? Continue reading →

Once again Chinua Achebe, one of the most, if not the top African writer, has brought into the literature another type of non-fiction genre. In this book, Achebe coherently presents his personal experience of colonial Nigeria, post-colonial Nigeria, Biafra War, and politics after the war. Although most pages are dedicated to the Biafra War, the book provides a detailed context of pre-war and post-war Nigeria. Seemingly, life in Nigeria was good during colonial times especially for children of the Christian parents such as Achebe’s.  British colonial government set up standard schools and selections to enter those schools were based on merits (perhaps ‘relative’ merit). It was for this reason that Achebe argues that they felt well prepared to run the country because they had received an outstanding education (p.49).  But may be only a few felt the same way. Things changed upon the independence when the colonial authority manouvered the first election by placing a person who my friend in reference to Plato would call a “lesser” to lead Nigeria (pp.48-52).  Having “lesser” leaders in the new nation hindered efforts for nation building and opened doors for hatred, lust for power, ethnicity, and many other killer viruses in nation building. Only 6 years after the independence Nigeria found itself in a civil conflict that was nothing short of genocide (pp.228-232). The Biafra war composed of systematic ethnic cleansing and one of the worst humanitarian crises.

 In his perfect literary style, Achebe gives an account of first hand experience of the war. He was a victim. In many angles. A Igbo man. A writer. A Biafran ‘state’ diplomat. Thus the pages of the book carry a disturbingly personal story on “things falling apart” yet easy to read thanks to Achebe’s magic writing hand.  In this, we learn the importance of keeping a diary of our daily life experience. It is a way of writing our own history. The account of the war in this book narrates what Achebe saw in his own eyes. In fact, very wisely Achebe wrote the story as it was and then sought for analysis or explanation after. For example, when he narrated about the joy and dancing following Mwalimu Nyerere’s recognition of Biafra, he gave a picture of what he saw even from his wife and later on he gives an analysis of the significance of Nyerere’s recognition. At this point I must say how proud again (as ever) I am to be a Tanzanian, a country that stood for humanitarian principles despite the OAU (Organisation of African Unity) stance.

 Well, in connection to the above, I can vividly say that Achebe tried to be as objective as possible. This is why he is critical to some of Ojukwu’s decisions and actions. Achebe was definitely pro- secession of Biafra and he has clearly explained why, but he was not a kind of a “Yes Master flag follow the wind” type.

One of the big lessons in this book is the role of writers and the power of writing. Achebe dedicated many pages in showing how committed writers not only influenced politics of the day but also predicted what will happen. For those who think writing is not effective, here is a quote for them from Achebe:

 There are some who believe that the writer has no role in politics or the social upheavals of his or her day.  Some of my friends say “No, it is too rough there. A writer has no business being where it is so rough. He writer should be on the sidelines with his notepad and pen, where he can observe with objectivity.” I believe that the African writer who steps aside can only write footnotes or a glossary when the event is over. He or she will become like the contemporary intellectual of futility in many other places, asking questions like: “Who am I? What is the meaning of my existence? Does this place belong to me or to someone else? Does my life belong to me or some other person?” These are questions that no one can answer. pp. 55-56.

Uuugh, the pinching thing is that Achebe criticizes Ali Mazrui’s work “The Trial of Christopher Okigbo” immediately after the above paragraph… no other comments from me!

That aside, the power of Achebe’s writing is evident in the ability to engage our emotions and feelings. His friendship with Okigbo was admirable and I felt very sad upon his lose of life. Similarly, his explanation of Azikiwe writings or his meetings with Senghor brought them very close to me as if I knew them in person already.

 The poems at the end of some tough and painful sections made it easy to move on to another section. They were like refreshing or tear wiping white cloth clearing the eyes for next pages.

In summary, Achebe’s writing talent lived with him to his old age. From his first novel, Things Fall Apart to this very last book in his life-time, Achebe has never let his readers down.  I am personally grateful for this wonderful non-fiction book, which provides a primary account of one the painful scars of Africa.

One question though:  the title of the book “ There Was A Country”… does it mean Biafra or Nigeria? Because the book starts with a narration of a brilliant Nigeria and ends up with a corrupt full of trouble Nigeria….! I, however, think the title means Biafra because of its subtitle A Personal History of Biafra.

 Well, I will end here so I can write my diary before sleep takes me over…may be one day this diary will account for personal history of …? What! #BungeLaKatiba…ooh no…may be of  Professor Hunk…lol! ouuch

“It was so sad to be a wiser man than one’s nation…One cannot feel bitterness towards one’s homeland. Better to be mistaken along with the nation than to be too right with those who tell it hard truths”p.148

The above quote is cited in the book. Renan, one of the 19^th Century Orientalists whose analysis of his work took considerable number of pages in the book, said the sentence in 1885.  It was one of the justifications for the cultural hegemony of the Occidental.

 Well, may be two words are already striking you from the above two short paragraphs. I assume they are Orientalist and Occidental. I am not sure if I have the capacity to explain them properly, and so I argue you to spare adequate focus time to read the book. In it’s simplest, Occidental refers to the European (or the West). I will define Orientalism using a quote from the book, then after I will put down what engulfed my mind while reading and after finishing this marvelous classic book.

 In the very first page Said says:

“Orientalism, a way of coming to terms with the Orient that is based on the Orient’s special place in European Western experience. The Orient is not only adjacent to Europe; it is also the place of Europe’s greatest and richest and oldest colonies, the source of civilizations and languages, its cultural contestant, and one of its deepest and most recurring images of the Other.  In addition, the Orient has helped to define Europe (or the West) as its contrasting image, idea, personality, experience. Yet none of this Orient is merely imaginative. The Orient is an integral part of  European material civilization and culture. Orientalism expresses and represents that part  culturally and even ideologically as a mode of discourse with supporting institutions, vocabulary, scholarship, imagery, doctrines, even colonial bureaucracies and colonial styles. In contrast, the American understanding of the Orient will seem considerably less dense, although recent Japanese, Korean, and Indochinese adventures ought now to be creating a more sober, more realistic “Oriental” awareness. Moreover the vastly expanded American political and economic role in the near East  (the Middle East (makes great claims on our understanding of that Orient” pp.1-2

Through the pages that follow the above paragraph are deep and critical explanations, evaluations, and reviews of the origins, development, and institutionalization of Orientalism. Said takes us through two or more centuries of the development and institutionalization of ‘representation’ of the Orient.

 The book is thus very well packed with reviews of different accounts of European explorers, colonial officials, policy makers, scholars, and media. Said deeply, in fact very deeply, analyzed various documents from European explorers diaries to the university academic syllabuses. Thus, the book is uniquely historical yet modern. The book has only three but long chapters with sub-chapters. Chapter one covers the scope of Orientalism, in which Said thorough analyses different angles and aspects of Orientalism from religious, to cultural, economic, scientific, and political points of view. In chapter two, Said takes us through written works by French and British scholars who had significant influence towards institutionalization of Orientalism.  Chapter three examines Orientalism now with a focus on academic side. The three chapters link the “idea” stage of Orientalism to “material” stage of Orientalism. By material, we can think of colonialism as well as institutionalization of departments/colleges that were put in place to further expound the Orientalism. A familiar example of this was the establishment of London School of Oriental and African Studies…considered as the necessary “Furniture of Empire”- p. 214

Some of the pages in those chapters were very difficult to get through. Often Said includes French quotes without translation or indenting them. Some of the sentences are a bit abstract and it seemed like I needed to get into Said’s mind to understand his line of thinking- but how could I do so with such an intellectual man as Said?

Now, let me quickly point out what I reflected while reading the book:

Representation of Africa – Chambi Chachage advised me to look at “Black Orientalism”, which I admittedly did not look so I don’t know the content. But may be in relation to that (assumptions) I think the concept of Orientalism as described throughout the book can be used as analytical framework to examine the representation of Africa over the years. In fact Said spoke of Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, which describes very well the controlling of the “subordinate” class in general. So over the years, since the time of European explorers such as Stanley, we see how Africa and Africans were represented which gave way to colonialism and neo-colonialism…and even now neoliberalism or post-modern colonialism.  Without even going into the scholarly work (which I cant generalize as I know a number of honest genuine academics who study Africa not for any bad motive or with wrong attitudes but for love and genuine interests), the international media has often portrayed and represent Africa in a negative way…and this is often for a certain reason. As Said said “representations have purposes, they are effective much of the time, they accomplish one of many tasks. Representations are formations, or….they are deformations” p.273

As Africans we need to reform so as to remedy those deformations. There have been efforts to rebrand Africa.  More is needed, not only in writings but also in hard work so as we can show the world that what has been systematically represented about Africa is not natural!

Islam and the West– I can’t even believe I’m writing this, but the phrase “Islam and the West” is not new to many of us. But to understand the representation of Islam in the West and now almost internationally (because what is the West anymore? Can we say the West is geographical?? That’s another debate or blog entry) can only be understood from historical perspective.  Tens of pages in this book have addressed this issue of representation of Islam from 18^th century by both the French and British scholars. Islam was wrongly presented and this is way too complicated and to some extent, sensitive.  But what we hear now about Islam has historical roots. I think people who want to thoroughly understand the unfair and stereotyped media representation of the Arab world, Islam, and political rhetoric especially after September 11 (2001) should read Said’s book.

Although I was genuinely scared of the book’s implication to the discipline of Anthropology or area studies, I think Said’s work is an honest piece that challenges us to think critically of the education system. It reminded me of  2 years ago when I was teaching ‘International Political Economy and Global Development” module at the University of Nottingham. In seminars, we took considerable hours to discuss Gramsci’s concept of hegemony. One of the difficult issues that we once or twice discussed was the role of the education we receive as an agent of the hegemony class. We have to be critical to the very education we receive because…can it be a hegemonic agent? I’m even scared to think about it…

On a different note…the book has reminded me…and mostly helped me to further understand two books that I read a while back:

 King Leopold’s Ghost

 The Western Supremacy: The Triumph of an Idea