I'd love if we could look at how the economics of the french ransom put on Haiti for their freedom has caused this scarcity, not the gangs. But why would be address the disease rather than the...
immediate activation of foreign troops to help free Haiti from the grip of gangs that has caused a scarcity of fuel, water and other basic supplies.
I'd love if we could look at how the economics of the french ransom put on Haiti for their freedom has caused this scarcity, not the gangs. But why would be address the disease rather than the symptom?
I think while the Haiti indemnity delayed its hypothetical prospering point, it's unlikely that it's the disease. I remember Matthew Yglesias did an interesting analysis on Haiti, but I cannot...
I think while the Haiti indemnity delayed its hypothetical prospering point, it's unlikely that it's the disease.
I remember Matthew Yglesias did an interesting analysis on Haiti, but I cannot find it, only this short tweet thread of his.
To briefly summarize plus add a few points:
Haiti's debt was nearly paid off by 1874 or 1875. It's noted that it took a series of very poor loans soon after.
When it fully paid off its debt by 1947, on basis of GDP per capita, it was at the same starting point as the Dominican Republic and actually was ahead of many poor countries like Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, and Rwanda.
But between its new beginnings in 1947 and today, its economy has failed to grown.
In the same or lesser period of time, the Dominican Republic's economy has grown 7–8x, and China has, of course, done extremely well.
In terms of socioeconomic trauma, Rwanda also had an extremely traumatic societal catastrophe that's far more recent—the Rwandan genocide—which killed off 10–15% of its population and also wrecked its economy. Its GDP declined by 40% in 1994 alone. But since then it's been experiencing rapid economic growth at 7–10% per year while Haiti's has stagnated or shrunk.
I think it's inarguable that the indemnity set Haiti back. But it alone doesn't sufficiently explain why it has failed to perform like its similarly-malpositioned peers.
Also to add: It should also be noted that the indemnity then would be worth about $560 million real dollars today, but liberal figures estimate that it has cost its economy $21bn over time. But...
Also to add:
It should also be noted that the indemnity then would be worth about $560 million real dollars today, but liberal figures estimate that it has cost its economy $21bn over time.
But Haiti has also received over $20bn in foreign aid over the past 60 years. So the historical damage done by the indemnity has been technically balanced by foreign aid in 2~3 Haitian generations.
I say technically because evidently all that money has done little longterm good. Though it has done a lot in providing short-term humanitarian relief.
Despite the indemnity narrative, the likely culprit of Haiti's woes is that well-intended international intervention has instead enabled massive political corruption — preventing Haiti from developing the necessary political structures to facilitate true organic economic growth.
Interesting read! This definitely helps explain why Haiti is such a poor and underdeveloped country. Though I think it's worth noting that the final payment of the debt was made back in 1947, so...
Interesting read! This definitely helps explain why Haiti is such a poor and underdeveloped country.
Though I think it's worth noting that the final payment of the debt was made back in 1947, so I'm not convinced it's the direct cause of this current scarcity.
Imagine founding a country with that gorilla on your back. No budget for infrastructure or healthcare or farming subsidies. Compound that with embargoes from western nations that prevent the...
Imagine founding a country with that gorilla on your back. No budget for infrastructure or healthcare or farming subsidies. Compound that with embargoes from western nations that prevent the import of mechanization or income from trade, you create a country with a very unstable foundation.
While I’m not sure which specific embargo is being referring to, as there’s been a handful of arms embargoes on Haiti throughout history (China has just proposed an arms embargo to combat gangs),...
While I’m not sure which specific embargo is being referring to, as there’s been a handful of arms embargoes on Haiti throughout history (China has just proposed an arms embargo to combat gangs), but I think the one being referenced is probably the 1991 US embargo by the H.W. Bush administration in response to a coup. (link to an LA Times article from the time). If I’m wrong though, let me know @rosco
Edit: I didn’t make it super clear, but the 1991 embargo wasn’t just on weapons like the other ones I know of, it was basically everything except food and humanitarian supplies
Edit 2: Looked into it a bit, there was also a subsequent UN embargo in 1994 with similar terms to the US embargo: no trade except food and humanitarian supplies, caused over military coup (NYT article)
I'd love if we could look at how the economics of the french ransom put on Haiti for their freedom has caused this scarcity, not the gangs. But why would be address the disease rather than the symptom?
I think while the Haiti indemnity delayed its hypothetical prospering point, it's unlikely that it's the disease.
I remember Matthew Yglesias did an interesting analysis on Haiti, but I cannot find it, only this short tweet thread of his.
To briefly summarize plus add a few points:
I think it's inarguable that the indemnity set Haiti back. But it alone doesn't sufficiently explain why it has failed to perform like its similarly-malpositioned peers.
Also to add:
It should also be noted that the indemnity then would be worth about $560 million real dollars today, but liberal figures estimate that it has cost its economy $21bn over time.
But Haiti has also received over $20bn in foreign aid over the past 60 years. So the historical damage done by the indemnity has been technically balanced by foreign aid in 2~3 Haitian generations.
I say technically because evidently all that money has done little longterm good. Though it has done a lot in providing short-term humanitarian relief.
Despite the indemnity narrative, the likely culprit of Haiti's woes is that well-intended international intervention has instead enabled massive political corruption — preventing Haiti from developing the necessary political structures to facilitate true organic economic growth.
That's new to me. Do you have a good link?
The Wikipedia article is a decent start.
Interesting read! This definitely helps explain why Haiti is such a poor and underdeveloped country.
Though I think it's worth noting that the final payment of the debt was made back in 1947, so I'm not convinced it's the direct cause of this current scarcity.
Imagine founding a country with that gorilla on your back. No budget for infrastructure or healthcare or farming subsidies. Compound that with embargoes from western nations that prevent the import of mechanization or income from trade, you create a country with a very unstable foundation.
Can you elaborate on the embargoes? They're also news to me.
While I’m not sure which specific embargo is being referring to, as there’s been a handful of arms embargoes on Haiti throughout history (China has just proposed an arms embargo to combat gangs), but I think the one being referenced is probably the 1991 US embargo by the H.W. Bush administration in response to a coup. (link to an LA Times article from the time). If I’m wrong though, let me know @rosco
Edit: I didn’t make it super clear, but the 1991 embargo wasn’t just on weapons like the other ones I know of, it was basically everything except food and humanitarian supplies
Edit 2: Looked into it a bit, there was also a subsequent UN embargo in 1994 with similar terms to the US embargo: no trade except food and humanitarian supplies, caused over military coup (NYT article)
There's also a Vox video by Johnny Harris that touches on this subject while covering the history of the whole island.
Here is one from NPR.