Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Aid in reverse: how poor countries develop

rich countries

Voir aussi la science lhomme et le monde


les nouveau enjeux de jean staune
( collectif)
Avec lide que jen ai tir en liant un
passage de mauraice allais sur largent que
cest rellement le nouveau dieu de ce
monde pour lequel ils y a des crimes
atroces qui sont commis et donc en
discutant la sharia avec les opposants il
faudrait leur faire valoir que la libert ( le
laisser faire en conomie voir allais) qui tout
an tant un dogme religieux ( le mythe du
rle du march dans lallocation juste des
ressources) que lorsque nous parlons des
mfais qui peuvent rsulter de lobissance
ou de lhtronomie ( dans les socits
religieuses) on devrait aussi parler des
mfaits de lutonomie absolue qui rsultent
en des millions de morts de famines de
guerres ( voir Zigler ) et quune
comparaison ne peut se faire de faon
biaise entre une rersentation dforme en
situation non idale en scrutant le moindre
mfaits en le dveloppant et en lamplifiant
dans les rseaux sociaux et mdias pour
atiser la peur ( une part de la fonction de
cette pratique est dallger langoisse
contemporaine en dmonisant et diabolisant
lautre pour tranquiliser ses propres
engoisses et les fuir) je disais que cette
comparaison tourne de la propagande
systmatique pour le mode de vie actuel en
taisant tous ses problmes et en en donnant
une image idalise via une prsentation
pradisiaque dans les filsm videos talk show
sshowbiz etc la comparaison ne tient pas.
Et le barbarisme est souvent cest vrai anul
dans le centre de ces socits mais cest
seulement pour se dchainer sur sa
priphrie sur ces nouveaux koufars du
dieu profits que sont les gens de peu voil le
cadre dans lequel doit seffectuer la
compraison. Un apriori mthodologique
capital est quil ne faut pas tre pris dans
une compraison side by side des lments
religieux ici et l, conomiques ici et l ,
sociaux ici et l des deux cots alors quil
faudrait bientt voir la chose de faon
fonctionnelle ce qui fait office ou fonction de
dogme suprme sur lequel est fond une
socit nest pas toujours le mme la
religion peut se rsorber mais laisse place
des fondements autre cest un peut comme
un systme dentits quon peut reprsenter
Comme dans lexplication de pinsart
propos de Foucault par des triangles
rectangles carr cercles etc. chaque lment
prend de limportance dans la dfinition de
la vision du monde de la dfinition des
fondamentaux inquestionables dune socit
etc et ce qui est troublant cest que dans les
socits modernes le profit ou largent
semble prendre le rle de Dieu et toutes les
analogies peuvent tre dresse de tel sorte
que la science conomique et la thoologie
les conomistes sont les thologiens la
libert du laisser-faire et la fonction
religieuse principale lquivalente de la
ibdah dans les systmes htronomie de
cette sorte lequivalent du kufr (lexclusion
majeure dans les systme htronomes) se
trouve tre la pauvret ou linutilit lin-
profitabilit dans les systme moderne. Le
hukm arridda trouve son pendant dans les
assassinats politico-conomiques ( Sankara
Guevara etc.) dresser un tableau complet de
la comparaison

Cest pour cela que des sentences un peu


svres peuvent conduire des images
barbares ( dans le systme htronomistes)
or quelle en est laquivalent dans les
systmes laisse-fairistes ? eh bien ce
barbarisme concentr dans les chtiments
corporel des victime qui manque dans ces
socit se voit compens par un
barbarisme de la criminalit impunie tiger
kidnaping, meurtres en srie crimes de
reprsaille entre gang et cartel de drogue
etc et ce des chelles dhorreur normes
( voir statistiques de crimes) donc cette
libert absolue elle aussi conduit la mort
mais cest une mort qui nest pas dissuasive
mais permissive. Bien sr il peut exister
des socit autonomes avec un minimum de
crime et un minimum de sentences libres
( prison bracelet etc) mais il existe aussi
des socits htronomes qui existent avec
un minimum de crimes et avec une pratique
minimaliste de sentences voir les exemples
historiques cits par Jonathan Brown dans
son article hudd. Comme il existent des
exemples contraires dans les deux cas ISIS
et les USA avec quelques rserves
concernant ISIS car 1 il sagit plus dun lot
htronome qui existe dans un ocan
autonome invasive et agressif et contre
lequel il se replie sur une caricature de son
propre systme et dautre 2 il survient
dans un monde totalement domin par une
excitation des dsirs ( systme
hyperconsumriste global) qui coduit
fatalement une multiplication des crimes
et donc des sentences vidos lappui or
cette multiplication des sentences est plus
imputable la logique laisser-fairiste quau
systme htronome pris en lui-mme. Donc
il sagit dun faux exemple coup sr !

Jason Hickel
New research shows that developing countries send trillions of dollars more to the west than
the other way around. Why?

A report on global money flows has found that trade misinvoicing and tax havens mean the
worlds givers are more like takers. Photograph: C Villemain/AFP/Getty Images

Shares
86,542

Comments
348
Contact author
Saturday 14 January 2017 10.00 GMT Last modified on Thursday 19 January 2017
10.56 GMT
We have long been told a compelling story about the relationship between rich countries and
poor countries. The story holds that the rich nations of the OECD give generously of their
wealth to the poorer nations of the global south, to help them eradicate poverty and push them
up the development ladder. Yes, during colonialism western powers may have enriched
themselves by extracting resources and slave labour from their colonies but thats all in the
past. These days, they give more than $125bn (102bn) in aid each year solid evidence of
their benevolent goodwill.
This story is so widely propagated by the aid industry and the governments of the rich world
that we have come to take it for granted. But it may not be as simple as it appears.
The US-based Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and the Centre for Applied Research at the
Norwegian School of Economics recently published some fascinating data. They tallied up all
of the financial resources that get transferred between rich countries and poor countries each
year: not just aid, foreign investment and trade flows (as previous studies have done) but also
non-financial transfers such as debt cancellation, unrequited transfers like workers
remittances, and unrecorded capital flight (more of this later). As far as I am aware, it is the
most comprehensive assessment of resource transfers ever undertaken.
The flow of money from rich countries to poor countries pales in comparison to the flow that
runs in the other direction
What they discovered is that the flow of money from rich countries to poor countries pales in
comparison to the flow that runs in the other direction.
In 2012, the last year of recorded data, developing countries received a total of $1.3tn,
including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3tn
flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2tn more to the rest of the
world than they received. If we look at all years since 1980, these net outflows add up to an
eye-popping total of $16.3tn thats how much money has been drained out of the global
south over the past few decades. To get a sense for the scale of this, $16.3tn is roughly the
GDP of the United States
What this means is that the usual development narrative has it backwards. Aid is effectively
flowing in reverse. Rich countries arent developing poor countries; poor countries are
developing rich ones.

It's not aid in reverse, illicit financial flows


are more complicated than that
Maya Forstater
Read more
What do these large outflows consist of? Well, some of it is payments on debt. Developing
countries have forked out over $4.2tn in interest payments alone since 1980 a direct cash
transfer to big banks in New York and London, on a scale that dwarfs the aid that they
received during the same period. Another big contributor is the income that foreigners make
on their investments in developing countries and then repatriate back home. Think of all the
profits that BP extracts from Nigerias oil reserves, for example, or that Anglo-American pulls
out of South Africas gold mines.
But by far the biggest chunk of outflows has to do with unrecorded and usually illicit
capital flight. GFI calculates that developing countries have lost a total of $13.4tn through
unrecorded capital flight since 1980.
Most of these unrecorded outflows take place through the international trade system.
Basically, corporations foreign and domestic alike report false prices on their trade
invoices in order to spirit money out of developing countries directly into tax havens and
secrecy jurisdictions, a practice known as trade misinvoicing. Usually the goal is to evade
taxes, but sometimes this practice is used to launder money or circumvent capital controls. In
2012, developing countries lost $700bn through trade misinvoicing, which outstripped aid
receipts that year by a factor of five.
Forget 'developing' poor countries, it's time
to 'de-develop' rich countries
Jason Hickel
Read more
Multinational companies also steal money from developing countries through same-invoice
faking, shifting profits illegally between their own subsidiaries by mutually faking trade
invoice prices on both sides. For example, a subsidiary in Nigeria might dodge local taxes by
shifting money to a related subsidiary in the British Virgin Islands, where the tax rate is
effectively zero and where stolen funds cant be traced.
GFI doesnt include same-invoice faking in its headline figures because it is very difficult to
detect, but they estimate that it amounts to another $700bn per year. And these figures only
cover theft through trade in goods. If we add theft through trade in services to the mix, it
brings total net resource outflows to about $3tn per year.
Thats 24 times more than the aid budget. In other words, for every $1 of aid that developing
countries receive, they lose $24 in net outflows. These outflows strip developing countries of
an important source of revenue and finance for development. The GFI report finds that
increasingly large net outflows have caused economic growth rates in developing countries to
decline, and are directly responsible for falling living standards.
Who is to blame for this disaster? Since illegal capital flight is such a big chunk of the
problem, thats a good place to start. Companies that lie on their trade invoices are clearly at
fault; but why is it so easy for them to get away with it? In the past, customs officials could
hold up transactions that looked dodgy, making it nearly impossible for anyone to cheat. But
the World Trade Organisation claimed that this made trade inefficient, and since 1994 customs
officials have been required to accept invoiced prices at face value except in very suspicious
circumstances, making it difficult for them to seize illicit outflows.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest


Protest about tax havens in London in 2016, organised by charities Oxfam, ActionAid and
Christian Aid. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images
Still, illegal capital flight wouldnt be possible without the tax havens. And when it comes to
tax havens, the culprits are not hard to identify: there are more than 60 in the world, and the
vast majority of them are controlled by a handful of western countries. There are European
tax havens such as Luxembourg and Belgium, and US tax havens like Delaware and
Manhattan. But by far the biggest network of tax havens is centered around the City of
London, which controls secrecy jurisdictions throughout the British Crown Dependencies and
Overseas Territories.
In other words, some of the very countries that so love to tout their foreign aid contributions
are the ones enabling mass theft from developing countries.
The aid narrative begins to seem a bit nave when we take these reverse flows into account. It
becomes clear that aid does little but mask the maldistribution of resources around the world.
It makes the takers seem like givers, granting them a kind of moral high ground while
preventing those of us who care about global poverty from understanding how the system
really works.
Poor countries dont need charity. They need justice. And justice is not difficult to deliver. We
could write off the excess debts of poor countries, freeing them up to spend their money on
development instead of interest payments on old loans; we could close down the secrecy
jurisdictions, and slap penalties on bankers and accountants who facilitate illicit outflows; and
we could impose a global minimum tax on corporate income to eliminate the incentive for
corporations to secretly shift their money around the world.
We know how to fix the problem. But doing so would run up against the interests of powerful
banks and corporations that extract significant material benefit from the existing system. The
question is, do we have the courage?
Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow
@GuardianGDP on Twitter.
Topics
Global development professionals network
Aid
OECD
Global economy
Economics
Tax havens
comment

HE BLOG

We Are Rich Just Because They Are Poor


25/11/2015 10:28 | Updated 24 November 2016

Ieva Zu Fashion journalist and talent scout


Today I commit to myself to look at the garment manufacturing information label before I buy
any item from any retailer. I have already started to consume less a couple of years ago when I
started questioning myself if having more is actually doing more harm. After the Rana Plaza
factory collapse in Bangladesh in 2013, killing more than 1100 people (!), everyone was
talking about the British discount clothing retailer Primark. It is natural to assume that the 3
T-Shirt must be made in awful conditions. I used to shop my essential basics at Primark now
and then but from then on I stopped completely. However, when I looked into the story or all
the other stories in depth, I understood that Primark was just a tip of the iceberg (and just one
of a few fashion retailers that actually took responsibility of what happened). There were at
least 23 fashion manufacturers using local work force in that chain of sweatshops where
Bangladeshi workers were slaving 19 hours per day in awful conditions. Some of the brands
(including Primark) have committed to repay affected families and improve their working
conditions but regardless that nothing much has actually changed since in the global rotten
fashion consumerism. Unfortunately, it doesnt even have to be the cheapest item on a high-
street to cause pain to a real person sewing it. Some designer houses use the same factories as
lets say H&M, United Collors of Benetton, Primark or Zara.
If your fashion label says made in Cambodia/Bangladesh/Vietnam, etc. be sure you are
contributing to the human slavery. It is very difficult to relate to the fact thus relating to the
story is a way to go. My friend Ausra told me about the Norvegian reality TV project
SWEATSHOP by Aftenposten.no. Three Norvegian youngsters were selected to participate in
a lifetime journey to Cambodia: Frida, Ludvig and Anniken (who is one of the most
influential fashion bloggers in Norway) went on a trip to Cambodia that changed their lives.
They are just ordinary fashion consumers of their age group so its a perfect sample group.
They went to Cambodia to see and experience the working conditions of sweatshop workers
making their clothes by lets say H&M. The rest is the history - it is pretty difficult to find the
right words to describe their experiences and relive the emotions but it is very healthy to
watch it yourself.
When I launched Fashion Bloc, that helps independent fashion houses and designers from
former Soviet countries access international audience, I knew I was going to work with the
designers and feature the designs that are designed AND made locally in Europe or by the
designers themselves (wherever in the world they were based at the moment). To be
completely honest, in the beginning it was more related to the urge to demonstrate a good
production quality but eventually it has also become a mission to contribute to the conscious
consumerism. Running Fashion Bloc is in a way helping independent designers be seen but
also helping independent consumers be conscious. Made in Europe is not a concept of pride
anymore. Made locally in Europe is a concept of equality, fairness, and economical support.
Supporting independent fashion designers and being conscious of what you are wearing
(carefully considering how much of the stuff you buy you actually need) could really make
you feel better and contribute to the society. It is indeed the same as stop wearing fur, eating
meat or buying caged meat. It is your choice.
One may argue that sweatshops or as they call them factories in countries such as Cambodia
contribute to their economical wellbeing where clothing manufacturing industry is one of the
biggest export industries. No one in their right mind would argue with that but the obvious,
well-known and public fact is - sweatshop workers are slaving there. Same as chicken packed
in a cage (for those of you who chose to eat organic, free range eggs, etc.). The difference
between the two is kind of obvious - the sweatshop workers are human beings who literally
sweat there (most factories dont have air fans, not even talking about air conditioners), and
often work until they faint of exhaustion or dehydration. I know it is quite difficult to relate to
the written words thus I urge you once again to watch the aforementioned documentary. If we
cant really stop people from working and governments from making (as little as it is) money
from the fashion retail industry, we can at least try and be the change we want to see in the
world.
There are quite a few fair-trade, conscious consumerism, slow fashion campaigners,
manufacturers, brands, ambassadors and the change is actually happening (very slowly
though). We are all a part of this. I think it is never too late to sit and think about the sentence
that was pronounced by one of the participants of the reality show (and she was only 17!):
We are rich just because they are poor. Rich is relative here but in the end, we can afford
tons of clothes (be it fast fashion or some designer brands) just because they make them for
almost free. What would happen if you would have 1 T-Shirt for the price of 3? Perhaps some
19 year-old who works in a factory to support her 8 person family could get a free bottle of
water for her working day.