In your opinion wat is the cause of less development rates in africa than on any other continent?
Question:
Answer:
there's less money inherent in its location or climate for us to use/abuse for profit. everywhere else we drill for oil or grow our drugs or invest our laundered finances.
and there's the racism thing too.
1-corruption
2-routine
3-civil wars
4-there is no cooperation between neighbouring countries
5-some great countries donot want any development in africa ,they provide some groups with guns
greetings from africa
lingering colonial aftereffects surely combine with corruption and the divisive nature of the continent, even within european defined nation states.
I am really going on what I have observed .The difference between Africa and any other continent is not a lack of human or physical resource but the management of them . The human resource factor comes into play in the lack of cohesion between tribes and factions throughout the continent. Plain talk, bad manners they are not united in most of their states . They always are fighting throughout there history . This is a recipe for disaster as every upheaval is a set back for economic and social development.
This lack of cohesion runs from the nomadic tribes to the national levels. This is evidenced in the progression of South Africa compared to the other states. Sadly the occupying force had to take credit for building the infrastructure of this nation by use of bigotry from the inception but it has a part to play in their development.
Look at Zimbabwe lack of cohesion has spiralled them into squalor , mismanagement of resources once again. These are but a few examples but they may explain the problems.
Well u can go on for pages addressing this, but in short its due to a lack of foreign direct investment and foreign aid. Foreign direct investment wont flow tinto areas of conflict, which is all over the region and the region is also riddled with political corrution which swallows up the foregin aid and scares off the investment. Also, political leaders tend to treat the nations like a play thing, staying in power for years and years and transfering dept and taking money. It also doesnt help that there is a total lack of connectedness to the outside, with little trade and internet/ telecommunications to the west... among others.
I'm a poli sci student near completion of my BA at Univ of Oregon. So understanding this not a professional, but a scholarly opinion with personal influence, I suggest the following:
Africa, during the previous 2 centuries, was developed very rapidly at times and in certain areas; most notably South Africa with the diamond and gold deposits. That the rest of Africa hasn't developed at a pace consistent with (some) other countries is due largely to north-south relations that have for a very long time concentrated capital in the northern hemisphere, like the U.S. and Europe, and used the southern hemisphere for resources and labor. If the whole of Africa were to develop significantly, the northern rich countries would lose a very important source for exploitive and excessive profit margins that they use to compete with each other and collectively use to dominate the globe.
The British hegemony of the 1800's and the U.S. hegemony of the 1900's both looked to take advantage of poor, undeveloped countries. They offer assistance to some, but only those that hold resources they desire or support political views. That China is growing to compete and will soon eclipse the U.S. economically and become the 2nd superpower frightens the northern hemisphere and will only likely lead to even less attention and support in developing African countries.
And yes, corruption and unstable governments affect this also, but whether they cause the stagnation or the stagnation causes the corruption is unclear.
OregonLion
More Questions & Answers...