Thanks for posting, Thin. It strikes me that Chris is really naive if he believes: "'The good thing is that those two key factors (government effectiveness, food supply diversity) are something that government or donors or the international community can control,' said Chris. 'The good thing is that those two key factors (government effectiveness, food supply diversity) are something that government or donors or the international community can control,' said Chris." It seems like magical thinking to believe that donors can control government effectiveness and food supply diversity, as if there are no politics involved at all.
Thanks Mary and apologies for the delayed response - I've been travelling and rushing between events.
I actually don't think it's naive, and would like to push back a little on "as if there are no politics involved at all".
The point isn't that donors or governments can just flip a switch on effectiveness or diversification. It's that, unlike the severity of the shock itself, these two factors are things politics and policy can act on, and exactly why the politics matters so much. I don't see it as Chris saying it's easy or automatic, I see it as him identifying where agency actually exists.
To me, the second paper I covered emphasised/reinforced this point: when governments and donors don't do this work (and when market power goes unchecked) we get the outcome where multinational traders are capturing 40-80% margins while farmers absorb the volatility. I don't see this as a failure of the "governments/donors/international can control" thesis, I see it as a demonstration of what happens when that political work doesn't get done.
Thanks for posting, Thin. It strikes me that Chris is really naive if he believes: "'The good thing is that those two key factors (government effectiveness, food supply diversity) are something that government or donors or the international community can control,' said Chris. 'The good thing is that those two key factors (government effectiveness, food supply diversity) are something that government or donors or the international community can control,' said Chris." It seems like magical thinking to believe that donors can control government effectiveness and food supply diversity, as if there are no politics involved at all.
Thanks Mary and apologies for the delayed response - I've been travelling and rushing between events.
I actually don't think it's naive, and would like to push back a little on "as if there are no politics involved at all".
The point isn't that donors or governments can just flip a switch on effectiveness or diversification. It's that, unlike the severity of the shock itself, these two factors are things politics and policy can act on, and exactly why the politics matters so much. I don't see it as Chris saying it's easy or automatic, I see it as him identifying where agency actually exists.
To me, the second paper I covered emphasised/reinforced this point: when governments and donors don't do this work (and when market power goes unchecked) we get the outcome where multinational traders are capturing 40-80% margins while farmers absorb the volatility. I don't see this as a failure of the "governments/donors/international can control" thesis, I see it as a demonstration of what happens when that political work doesn't get done.