tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147981271360235310.post4251310266084139467..comments2009-10-17T15:03:05.734+02:00Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032628532132538628noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147981271360235310.post-50195518910071213992009-10-17T15:03:05.734+02:002009-10-17T15:03:05.734+02:00Just to be clear -- I am absolutely not arguing against taxation and then using the funds for social goods like education (and health and roads etc).<br /><br />I am saying that the Government should not *control* the firm and that society can be better off with private ownership/control (due to the incentive structure) and taxation by a Government.<br /><br />Even the most extreme market economist would also say that Government had a role in regulation too.<br /><br />With regards to skill shortage, a nice example is currently Zambia. The Government can&#39;t afford any qualified people to regulate the mines (mostly copper there) because the mining companies pay too high wages.<br /><br />There is loads of work on the brain drain and skill shortage in some sectors in Africa. I recommend key words into Google Scholar.<br /><br />With regards to the &#39;Norway model&#39;. In an ideal world, yes. But to think that this model could be replicated very easily in Africa is hopeful at best. Democracy and politicians just don&#39;t work the same way here and giving them control of those resources would result in disaster many more times than not. It would be highly risky.Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032628532132538628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147981271360235310.post-66655034141940153412009-10-16T22:02:42.088+02:002009-10-16T22:02:42.088+02:00As you acknoweldge in your study, firms which were previously owned by the governement cited corruption as less as a poblem, presumably because of continued links to the government. I&#39;m not neccessarily ant-multilaterals but I don&#39;t believe in blind faith or in the invisible hand. The free market has it&#39;s limitations. Government and NGO&#39;s should all have a significant roll in regulating any trading to make sure that it is done fairly and to make sure that things are managed appropriately. <br />My argument would be that the wealth generated by natural resources can benefit the country more significantly and more quickly using the Norwegian model. <br />Your point about wages is interesting. It indicates that there are only a small number of qualified people within each nation (i&#39;d like to see more data to back this up as something about this idea seems unreal but let&#39;s accept it as a theoretical premise). A solution therefore would be for a country to improve it&#39;s education and therefore produce more qualified people. You would surely be able to do this using the profits from the natural resources - preferably by improving your countries education system. However, is this something that the mutilaterals are interested in? (let&#39;s assume i&#39;m not being moral and treat that as a practical question). Therefore you could then argue that in order to overcome one of your nautral resource curses you would need to spend money improving your countries education system and you can only do this if the governement has control of some of the money generated by by the natural resources. You could therefore argue that, while a few well paid workers would generate some ecomic benefits for the country these are not as significant as they could be if the government was able to use these funds wisely to invest in it&#39;s countries future. I would argue that this would be a quicker way to empower citizens and thus promote ecomic growth. <br />robinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com