Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / January 2005
"Zambia not hindered from hiring teachers," IMF
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Alex - 02 Jan 2005 23:51 GMT From Africa Online News: http://www.afrol.com/articles/14832
"Zambia not hindered from hiring teachers," IMF
afrol News, 18 November - The International Monetary Fund (IMF) today answered the widespread criticism regarding its Zambia policies. A new report concludes that 8,000 to 9,000 newly qualified teachers in Zambia could not be hired due to "IMF policies". The Fund however maintains it had never "prohibited the Zambian government from hiring new teachers."
A recent paper released by the Global Campaign for Education states that 8,000 to 9,000 newly qualified teachers in Zambia have not been hired. The paper, entitled 'Undervaluing teachers - IMF policies squeeze Zambia's education system', concludes that this situation is a consequence of instructions from the IMF to the Zambian government.
- It is regrettable that the paper's discussion of developments in Zambia contains so many inaccuracies and misconceptions, today says IMF Director of External Relations, Thomas Dawson, in an open letter to the Global Campaign for Education.
The case of Zambia has often been used as an example of the IMF's failures in the fight against poverty. After decades of "structural reforms", closely following the IMF recipe, poverty has only increased in Zambia and the social sectors have been decimated. A freezing of the government's wage bill and in hiring, allegedly following IMF instructions, this year caused new criticism against IMF policies in Zambia.
According to Mr Dawson, however, this was not the case. "The performance of the Zambian economy has improved considerably in recent years," the IMF official maintains. Economic growth has averaged more than 4 percent per year since 2000, he explains, although admitting that growth needed to be "stronger and sustained over a longer period" to have an effect on poverty in Zambia.
Mr Dawson claims that the comprehensive domestic debt accumulated to finance the budget deficit over the last years now has become the most serious threat to Zambia's economy. One of the main reasons for this borrowing had been the government wage bill, which rose sharply from 5.3 percent of GDP in 2000 to 8 percent of GDP in 2002, due to "large wage increases," according to the IMF.
- In April 2003, government wages were raised substantially and a new housing allowance was introduced, the IMF official says. "These measures were not part of the budget approved by Parliament, and were not otherwise sanctioned by Parliament. Moreover, the increase in the wage bill was again to come from higher wages and benefits rather than from the hiring of more teachers or other priority employees," he adds.
In July 2003, the IMF and the government of Zambia thus agreed that payment of this large wage bill and related allowances "would have jeopardised the recovery" of the national economy. The increased wage bill could neither be financed through cuts elsewhere in the budget, by "printing money" nor through additional government borrowing, it was established in the talks.
Consequently, the IMF officials claim, the government agreed to take steps to "contain the growth in civil service compensation in 2003 and set the basis for returning the wage bill to a more manageable level in 2004." Negotiations between the government and the disappointed trade unions were started.
As a result, "some ministries found that their budget allocations did not allow for recruitment of new staff during the year," Mr Dawson goes on explaining. "Also, the savings from the removal of some 4,000 employees from the payroll during the year were not used to hire more priority staff, such as teachers and health care providers, but to hire more employees in the central administration."
While the IMF official holds the Zambian government is to blame for only hiring administration employees, he raises a second argument outside the control of the IMF: "There are over 7,000 teachers ready to leave the service on retirement but not able to do so because the government cannot afford to pay their termination benefits. These teachers have therefore remained on the payroll, receiving their salaries but not working."
According to Mr Dawson, this is the greatest problem regarding the criticised failure in teachers' recruitment. The IMF and Zambia's development partners were however working to find ways to resolve this problem, he said. "The government of the Netherlands is this year providing a grant of nearly Kwacha 50 billion (US$ 10 million) to cover unpaid termination benefits to allow 7,000 teachers to leave the service and to allow replacements to be hired."
- The economic programmes that the IMF has supported in Zambia ... have not included limits on government hiring in health or education, Mr Dawson emphasised. Teachers, doctors, and nurses had been specifically excluded from the freeze on civil service hiring in a Zambian government document of 2002, and IMF programmes this year did not include a freeze on hiring in the public sector at all, he added.
It remains to be seen whether the Zambian government agrees to the version of the IMF as it struggles with impatient trade unions over the national wage bill. In Zambia, word is that the government has only a very limited influence over its own budget after sticking to IMF programmes.
By staff writers
Slow Eddy - 03 Jan 2005 21:00 GMT > From Africa Online News: http://www.afrol.com/articles/14832 > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > > By staff writers Is it a bad thing that some governments have limited control over their own budgets? I mean if the IMF wasn't involved wouldn't the same problems still be present? Seems that this is simply a matter of the constraints imposed by circumstance. You have to cut your coat according to your cloth, and it looks like the Zambian government doesn't have that much cloth to work with. Probably because of previous mismanagement of the economy by previous governments who "had control of their own budgets" (ie. with the feeling that this power had no constraints).
What I'd like to know is what the IMF is doing wrong here? Looks to me like they're doing the best they can to steer the Zambian government round problems of Zambian rather than IMF origin. Someone sometime past didn't plan for the retirement of teachers, it seems, so now they're sitting with teachers who don't teach, drawing full salaries, while the replacements for those teachers (who would presumably teach in exchange for their pay) are knocking at the door, but can't come in.
Is the suggestion implied that some money should be thrown at this problem or something?
 Signature Slow Eddy
conciliator - 04 Jan 2005 19:20 GMT > > From Africa Online News: http://www.afrol.com/articles/14832 > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Slow Eddy Having lived in Zambia for many years, before and after Independence, I have a fair amount of knowledge why that country went down the tubes. N. Rhodesia, as it was known, was one of the richest African States in Central Africa, due to the large revenues received from successful copper and cobalt mining. Before it was absorbed into the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, personal income tax was an unknown thing.
After independence, the country slowly started sliding downhill. It took a while to "bankrupt" it due to the income from the copper mines, and the money in the kitty when Britain granted the country independence after the break-up of the Federation.
Mismanagement, too fast black empowerment policies, especially on the mines, as well as the greed of the leaders led the country into chaos. Roads fell in gross disrepair, education went downhill, and the whole place degenerated. Kaunda had glorious plans for the country, and started out on a 10 year development plan. Ten years later, as things went from bad to worse, another 10 year development plan was put into place.
Zambia for instance had a large agricultural section, which was run into the ground by intimating to the (mainly white) farmers that they were not really wanted there. Corruption was rife, and all in all it went the way most independent nations became basket cases. The Kwacha, at one stage equal to the Rand, fell so much that it was virtually worth nothing. Kaunda's hard arse stance against the declaration of UDI didn't help his cause whatsoever, as he suddenly found that the country depended enormously on the then Rhodesia, and strict petrol rationing for one was introduced.
Kaunda was subsequently voted out of power, but his successor, Chiluba, was even a bigger crook. The country, under the present leader (whose name escapes me for the moment), things have stabilised somewhat. Zambia asked the IMF amongst others to assist it in trying to reverse the slide into nothingness. The IMF quite happily obliged, and laid down certain rules and regulations needed to bring the economy onto some sort of sound footing. The fact that the government didn't have all the know how to implement these policies cannot be blamed on the IMF.
There were also serious food shortages, and when Mugabe kicked farmers off their land, quite a number of these dispossessed farmers moved to Zambia, where they were given land, and proceeded to do what they know best - successful farming. Zambia now has enough food to feed it's population, and even exports some of it's maize crop. The big joke is that maize has been exported to Zimbabwe, who gratefully accepted this, despite the fact that this maize was grown mainly by farmers who previously supplied all of Zimbabwe's needs.
Zambia needs to get it's house in order in general, and if the IMF recommendations are strictly adhered to, the country could flourish again in the future. -- conciliator
Slow Eddy - 06 Jan 2005 22:31 GMT > "Slow Eddy" <notmyrealaddress@sillyboy.co.ru> wrote in message .
> There were also serious food shortages, and when Mugabe kicked farmers off > their land, quite a number of these dispossessed farmers moved to Zambia, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > recommendations are strictly adhered to, the country could flourish again > in the future. I've heard that before independence Northern Rhodesia was a nett exporter of food, and that when Kaunda kicked the white farmers out (for "taking all the "good" land," I suppose -- all of which good land somehow all lay within reach of the railway line) the country rapidly became a nett importer. You'd think that poephol Mugabe could've learnt something from that, wouldn't you? The man must suffer from a fairly extreme form of idiocy. And now Zambia woos the commercial farmers, back they come, and Lo! there are grain surpluses all over again. Probably all from the rebuilt farms near the railway line. On the "good land".
Now what I'm wondering is how long this will last. How long before people again become envious and resentful that all the "good land" has been "given" to the whites? How long before forgetfulness and stupidity again kick in, and the farmers get kicked out again?
> -- > conciliator
 Signature Slow Eddy
conciliator - 07 Jan 2005 18:32 GMT > > "Slow Eddy" <notmyrealaddress@sillyboy.co.ru> wrote in message > . [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Slow Eddy That, of course, is the "beauty" about living in Africa. You never know what tomorrow will bring. However, the ex Zim farmers are also helping out local Zambian farmers, which pleases that government no end. But........ once the Zambian farmers think they know enough, history may repeat itself. -- conciliator
Peter H.M. Brooks - 04 Jan 2005 19:21 GMT > Is it a bad thing that some governments have limited control over their own > budgets? I mean if the IMF wasn't involved wouldn't the same problems still [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > governments who "had control of their own budgets" (ie. with the feeling > that this power had no constraints). This is true enough. If you are going to act as if there are no constraints then you have to stiff your neighbours for the bill later - the US has done this repeatedly over the last century and continues to do it. This example gives other people the idea that money is infinitely expandable.
The Yanks have been relying on the Chinese to bail them out for the past few years. Just a few weeks ago the Chinese, in the most diplomatic language, told them to 'f.ck off'. This will take a while to play out, but, if the Chinese are indeed serious, it is a good time to buy gold and liquidise any debts you might have.
-- It is an unalterable law that people who claim to care about the human race are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of individuals - Quinten Crisp, Resident Alien * TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Brian Mailman - 04 Jan 2005 22:07 GMT > The Yanks have been relying on the Chinese to bail them out for the past > few years. Just a few weeks ago the Chinese, in the most diplomatic > language, told them to 'f.ck off'. This will take a while to play out, > but, if the Chinese are indeed serious, it is a good time to buy gold > and liquidise any debts you might have. Yeah, the PTB here are well known for a ... "failure of imagination" ... was the nice way it was put.
Since they don't read, they don't remember much less know to begin with the Chinese are doing the same thing to the US they did to you Brits in the 1800s (that led to the Opium Wars to equalize trade). When they're able to, they'll pull all support from the dollar...
B/
GMCarter - 05 Jan 2005 10:21 GMT snip
>Since they don't read, they don't remember much less know to begin with >the Chinese are doing the same thing to the US they did to you Brits in >the 1800s (that led to the Opium Wars to equalize trade). When they're >able to, they'll pull all support from the dollar... Between that, the threat of OPEC to shift from the dollar to the euro, about $10 TRILLION in personal debt in the US, a consumer economy that relies not on producing anything but just consuming and the rich getting richer while the rest are less able to consume, one wonders how anyone can look at the US economy and see anything but looming, horrific disaster...plus being horribly in debt (thanks W) and things getting worse for a botched, horrible war based on lies.
Charming picture. And as Ken has pointed out, oil is going to start running out.
George M. Carter
Mark Richardson - 05 Jan 2005 15:28 GMT > Charming picture. And as Ken has pointed out, oil is going to start > running out. It may not be running out in the immediate future, but what is needed is an alternative and that is where a very essential focus is needed - alternatives are possible but they need to be formulated in means that are accessible to populations as a whole..
Mark Richardson
Brian Mailman - 05 Jan 2005 17:57 GMT > snip >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > how anyone can look at the US economy and see anything but looming, > horrific disaster... What they want, I believe, is a return to the US of the 1880s--all gentility, lemonade on the South Lawn, safe and cozy isolation from the complexities of the world, weak government since the business of the US is business.... but as you say, it's about to become a horrible, horrible disaster, the Great Depression will be a Sunday School picnic.
B/
GMCarter - 05 Jan 2005 23:01 GMT snip...>
>What they want, I believe, is a return to the US of the 1880s--all >gentility, lemonade on the South Lawn, safe and cozy isolation from the >complexities of the world, weak government since the business of the US >is business.... but as you say, it's about to become a horrible, >horrible disaster, the Great Depression will be a Sunday School picnic. And what EVER will they do since they've already locked up a huge percentage of the male negroes? Oh!
Well, aside from outsourcing the prisons, they can "rehabilitate" them through "work" programs. 'Course a lot of them dark ones from south of the border get to be indentured servants whilst pickin' oranges in Jeb's state. Damn. That dude looks like Rush Limbaugh these days.
George M. Carer
Slow Eddy - 05 Jan 2005 21:54 GMT >> Is it a bad thing that some governments have limited control over their >> own budgets? I mean if the IMF wasn't involved wouldn't the same problems [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > but, if the Chinese are indeed serious, it is a good time to buy gold > and liquidise any debts you might have. How have the Chinese been propping up the Yanks? I've never heard this one before, and am interested to know the details of how it works. I can't see the links, but then that's natural enough, given my nearly perfect ignorance in this matter.
 Signature Slow Eddy
Peter H.M. Brooks - 06 Jan 2005 20:22 GMT > How have the Chinese been propping up the Yanks? I've never heard this one > before, and am interested to know the details of how it works. I can't see > the links, but then that's natural enough, given my nearly perfect > ignorance in this matter. For a jolly chat about this look at: http://www.bedlamplc.com/pdfs/pow/potw46.pdf
-- "You will not ask me what is the point of envy.--You are determined, I see, to have no curiosity.--You are wise--but _I_ cannot be wise. Emma, I must tell you what you will not ask, though I may wish it unsaid the next moment." -- Emma, Jane Austen * TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Moira de Swardt - 07 Jan 2005 05:35 GMT "Slow Eddy" <notmyrealaddress@sillyboy.co.ru> wrote in message
> How have the Chinese been propping up the Yanks? I've never heard this one > before, and am interested to know the details of how it works. I can't see > the links, but then that's natural enough, given my nearly perfect > ignorance in this matter. You haven't covered this in your study of Mandarin yet? Tut. :-)
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Slow Eddy - 07 Jan 2005 21:58 GMT > "Slow Eddy" <notmyrealaddress@sillyboy.co.ru> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Moira, the Faerie Godmother Must be in the floating module on Chinese culture and customs.
Have just discovered to my relief that Mandarin 101 is not quite as heavy as I first thought. I wrongly assumed that an additional twelve lessons (out of 20) were part of the first semester course, so have been pushing really hard to make some progress. Turns out that the text book is split across the year. So I've browsed my entire semester's course already. So I suppose that panic was a good thing then.
 Signature Slow Eddy
Alex - 05 Jan 2005 01:42 GMT > > From Africa Online News: http://www.afrol.com/articles/14832 > > [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > governments who "had control of their own budgets" (ie. with the feeling > that this power had no constraints). Things seem to me to be deeper than that.
There is a lack of true democracy, which translates in central governments, and presidents, pulling more and more power towards themselves, towards the center of the country and towards the capital.
As a result, there is a lack of economic opportunity in the provinces, increasing urbanisation, and more and more people competing for the same amount of resources.
There is a reason why Zambia stuck to being the one commodity economy it is today. There has never been a drive to create prime conditions for local businesses. (Nor were there under colonialism - think about the 100 or so years colonial administrations have had to diversify the economy and allow the locals to create and accumulate wealth of their own - there would have been no colonial wars.)
> What I'd like to know is what the IMF is doing wrong here? Looks to me like > they're doing the best they can to steer the Zambian government round > problems of Zambian rather than IMF origin. What the IMF and World Bank have done wrong in Zambia:
1) Destroy social programs that were the basis of a future economy - education, health. 2) They forced the same junkyard sale of government owned businesses they did in Russia and which created the oligarchs - one of whom is standing in a cage in front of a judge right now. 3) They think that a low interest rate without development is meaningful. 4) No country can be governed from abroad - which is what the IMF is doing in it's own colonial way. The fact that the present government is bad (bad enough not to have the imagination not to do what the IMF tells it) changes that not one iota.
If you've taken a look at the privatisation effort, it is more like: "Pssst, kid... wanna buy a mine?". These bids ARE CLOSED TO ZAMBIAN BUSINESSES! You MUST be a foreigner to bid for these companies. That's insane, but it tells you everything you ever needed to know about the corrupt ways of the IMF. Think about it - if the true objective was privatisation (moving state businesses out of state hands into private hands), then why exclude local companies and individuals? What could be so wrong about Zambians owning Zambian businesses? And why is the present government going along with it??
The IMF/WB are NO GOOD at running anything.
> Someone sometime past didn't plan for the retirement of teachers > it seems, so now they're sitting with > teachers who don't teach, drawing full salaries, while the replacements for > those teachers (who would presumably teach in exchange for their pay) are > knocking at the door, but can't come in. What happened is that there was this oil crisis, which turned reasonable sub billion dollar debts into multi-billion dollar millstones. At the same time, the raw commodities these countries produce went out of demand because of the worldwide recession of the late seventies and early eighties. Compound interest did the rest. Much of this debt was never lent - it's just interest.
And why should teachers be federate/state (as opposed to district, municipal or freelance) employees? Of course it gives the state direct power over the curriculum...
Alex
Mark Richardson - 05 Jan 2005 04:57 GMT > There is a lack of true democracy, which translates in central governments, > and presidents, pulling more and more power towards themselves, towards > the center of the country and towards the capital.
> As a result, there is a lack of economic opportunity in the provinces, > increasing urbanisation, and more and more people competing for > the same amount of resources. This is the norm in Africa.
> There is a reason why Zambia stuck to being the one commodity > economy it is today. There has never been a drive to create prime > conditions for local businesses. (Nor were there under colonialism - > think about the 100 or so years colonial administrations have had > to diversify the economy and allow the locals to create and accumulate > wealth of their own - there would have been no colonial wars.) No "drive" to create prime conditions for local businesses? This is not something that happens overnight and the colonial period, which was certainly based on the extraction of a single commodity (two actually) was the correct start, because it was able to begin the construction of the necessary physical infrastructure and also to begin to establish a culture of work above and beyond what had, up until then, been and Early Iron Age culture. These things cannot happen overnight and if development is to take place, there has to be a culture based on initiative and skills relevant to the competition elsewhere. Right now, that does not exist.
It is a fact that too many of those who do have skills and initiative leave to go the the Developed World. I read recently, that there are more Malawian doctors practising in Manchester, than in the whole of Malawi. Maybe, rather than looking for institutions like the IMF, the World Bank etc., to wave a magic wand, it would be a practical move for the developed countries to return those who have emigrated to their countries of origin and to prevent any future immigration from the Third World. Maybe then, those who have the abilities needed will be in place to make use of them, for their own benefit and for the benefit of those around them.
Mark Richardson
Alex - 05 Jan 2005 19:07 GMT > > There is a lack of true democracy, which translates in central > governments, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > This is the norm in Africa. Actually it is the norm for all countries that are overly centralized.
> > There is a reason why Zambia stuck to being the one commodity > > economy it is today. There has never been a drive to create prime [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No "drive" to create prime conditions for local businesses? This is not > something that happens overnight The conditions for trade, manufacturing already existed. Look at the trade networks that connected Africa all the way to Korea.
> and the colonial period, which was > certainly based on the extraction of a single commodity (two actually) was > the correct start, because it was able to begin the construction of the > necessary physical infrastructure and also to begin to establish a culture > of work above and beyond what had, up until then, been and Early Iron Age > culture. I'd like to think I have more imagination than to believe that exploitation was the only way "develop" (in quotation marks, because exploitation isn't development) by yanking one commodity out of the ground.
Besides, that kind of colonial exploitation leaves political, social and all other infrastructures undeveloped, as we've seen throughout the history of western colonialism.
Let us not forget that colonialism FAILED everywhere it was tried.
> These things cannot happen overnight and if development is to take > place, there has to be a culture based on initiative and skills relevant to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > return those who have emigrated to their countries of origin and to prevent > any future immigration from the Third World. You mean coercion? Spoken like a true South African.
It also misses the point as to why so many people leave for greener pastures.
Alex
Mark Richardson - 06 Jan 2005 04:06 GMT > > > As a result, there is a lack of economic opportunity in the provinces, > > > increasing urbanisation, and more and more people competing for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Actually it is the norm for all countries that are overly centralized. But it is the case throughout Africa and that is the point. Governments in Africa, generally, are composed of small groups concerned only with their own well being.
> > > There is a reason why Zambia stuck to being the one commodity > > > economy it is today. There has never been a drive to create prime [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Look at the trade networks that connected Africa > all the way to Korea. They existed as a result of the colonial administrations. Once these had gone they atrophied.
> > and the colonial period, which was > > certainly based on the extraction of a single commodity (two actually) was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > because exploitation isn't development) by yanking one > commodity out of the ground. Exploitation of basic resources was the only way to start when the inhabitants of the country did not and do not have any knowledge, or local means, of developing in any other way. It is essential to create a sound financial base from which infrastructure can be created and in this process, the local inhabitants were put in a position from which they could develop basic skills and from which continuing development could have taken place. It cannot and never will happen overnight because a true basis for permament development will ony be created after at least three generations have experienced the initial building phase.
> Besides, that kind of colonial exploitation leaves political, > social and all other infrastructures undeveloped, as we've > seen throughout the history of western colonialism. > > Let us not forget that colonialism FAILED everywhere > it was tried. It was not colonialism that failed. That was the initial platform, from which genuine development could have been established. The failures resulted from the local regimes which took over and generally wrecked what had been built during the colonial period. Had the colonial period lasted for another hundred years there would be no ethnic wars, famines and starvation, just as there was nothing of the sort during the colonial period.
> > These things cannot happen overnight and if development is to take > > place, there has to be a culture based on initiative and skills relevant to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You mean coercion? Spoken like a true South African. Yes, sometimes coercion is necessary in order to put into effect a better way of life. Unless those who actually have a degree of competence and intiative remain in their homelands, how are those homelands going to make progress? If competent people are present it makes genuine investment so much easier and without genuine investment - not aid - no progress is going to take place.
> It also misses the point as to why so many people leave for > greener pastures. No, the point is that someone else made those pastures greener and it is obviously easier to take advantage than to try and build a decent way of life at home.
However, progress always involves a degree of initial hardship and that is how the greener pastures were created. It is up to locals to do the work and in the initial stages, to deal with the obvious hardships and to learn the essentials of development from discovering how to deal with those hardships. That is why the competent citizens should remain in place and be the catalyst for future progress.
Mark Richardson
|
|
|