Agriculture and the Chief Servant’s madness (I)

Yet, I took this as a priviledge to contribute, so I run through some mental models of development and struggled to nail down ideas that could be conceptualized, implemented, their impact felt within two years and possessing enduring sustainability as to be qualified as legacies.  In my mental struggles, I stood united with the economist […]

Yet, I took this as a priviledge to contribute, so I run through some mental models of development and struggled to nail down ideas that could be conceptualized, implemented, their impact felt within two years and possessing enduring sustainability as to be qualified as legacies.  
In my mental struggles, I stood united with the economist Charles Whelan who believes there’s no formula for economic development – no magic bullet, if you will.  Yet, he argued, and I agree, that there are certain features common to societies which have been successful in their developmental exploits.  Thus, the logical question is, what are those factors?  And, how did they do it?
And whom best to ask than those who have achieved the feat in recent history – the Asians?  Accordingly, I was drawn to recall the march of the Asian tigers – namely, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea.  Particularly, I recalled the talk Dr. Mahathir, the former prime minister of Malaysia, gave us when we were students.  Poignant in the talk was how Asian leaders of that time inspired one another.  “We look,” Mahathir said, “toward East.”
Particularly, he told us of South Korea’s rise.  Park Chung-hee, he said, dreamed of turning his agrarian country into a technological one; and with that resolve, focused on education with manic ebullience.   South Korea now has the fastest internet connection in the world, among other technological feats.  Yet, when the economic boom started in 1963, agriculture contributed.  Although with a good deal of mountainous regions and with only 22% of arable land, majority of South Koreans were farmers at that time.
By 1979, when President Park was assassinated, growth in agricultural sector averaged 6.8% annually.  The reader might have already sensed my conclusion.  But here’s an example of another tiger, Taiwan.
This tiny island hosts 23 million people only, even so, it has a GDP (of $1 trillion) that almost doubles our recently recalculated, over-celebrated and over-hyped GDP; this makes it the 19th largest economy in the world and qualifies now as an advanced industrial nation.  Progress, however, could be traced to its agricultural beginnings.
The government, for instance, implemented an import-substitution policy to locally produce imported goods; and established the Joint Commission of Rural Reconstruction, turning the agricultural sector into a giant with sturdy shoulders on which later economic development stood.  
Let’s examine agricultural contribution of Dr. Mahathir’s own Malaysia.  A country of 28 million people with GDP of $700 billion (also bigger than ours); the only country in Southeast Asia which produces its own car, and one of the best economies in the region having an economy with a consistent growth of 6.5% for 50 years.  How did Malaysia do it?
At a point, the country reasoned that the industrial sector provided more jobs than agriculture.  For example, a piece of land farmed by a couple of farmers could be used to build a factory to employ hundreds of workers.  This realization didn’t cause them to abandon agriculture or the farmers – they were instead, resettled.  Federal Land Development Authority or Felda, became the most successful resettlement programme in the world. Further, the farmers so resettled became millions due to how government facilitated their productions– so successful that when Felda went public in 2012, their IPO was the biggest in the world, second only to Facebook.
Today, Malaysia persists as one of the world’s largest producers of palm oil.  Between 2013 and 2014, Malaysia has been listed as one of the best places to retire in the world, with the country in third position on the Global Retirement Index. Further, the country has 13 GW of electrical generation capacity (while we battle with megawatts, they’re already counting gigawatts).
Even though these countries have reached developed status in their technological prowess, they did not and have not abandoned agriculture.  So where should we start? We, who are nowhere technologically and agriculturally?
Thus, the ideas I suggested to those government functionaries from Niger were agriculture related.  But does it mean that the government didn’t know that it could piggyback on agriculture to greater development?  No.  Indeed it strikes one that the governor, more than anybody, understands this.
Regarding such understanding, our uncle, Malam Mohammed Haruna reported in his column in Daily Trust of June 29, 2011, the governor’s speech at the Nupe Day lecture.   The governor, Malam Mohammed wrote, “dwelt extensively on the potential of [Nupe] people and rich land for producing enough grains, rice in particular, to feed the whole country.”
If indeed this is what the governor believes, the fact that his government has refused to allow a rice mill with a potential to engage 5000 workers and farmers could only be described as madness. And I believe the perpetrator of such mischief treacherous at root, traitorous to his core.
To be concluded next week.