I'm not interested in talking about Greg Clark or making comparisons to the West; if need be compare it to other black Caribbean nations, such as Jamaica or Barbados. It's much worse and in terms of social indicators it is also worse than many places in Africa. Why? Here a few hypotheses (NB: I don't endorse all of them):
1. Haiti cut its colonial ties too early, rebelling against the French in the early 19th century and achieving complete independence. Guadaloupe and Martinique are still riding the gravy train and French aid is a huge chunk of their gdps.
2. Haiti was a French colony in the first place and French colonies do less well.
3. Sugar cane gave Haiti some early characteristics of "the resource curse," dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries.
4. Haiti was doing OK until the Duvaliers destroyed civil society, thus putting the country on a path toward destruction. It is a more or less random one-time event which wrecked the place.
5. Hegel was correct that the "voodoo religion," with its intransitive power relations among the gods, was prone to producing political intransitivity as well. (Isn't that a startling insight for a guy who didn't travel the broader world much?)
6. For reasons peculiar to the history of the slave trade, Haitian slaves came from many different parts of Africa and thus Haitian internal culture has long had lower levels of cohesion and cooperation. (The former point about the mix is true, but the cultural point is speculation.)
7. Haiti has higher than average levels of polygamy (but is this cause or effect?)
8. In the early to mid twentieth century, Haiti was poorly situated to attract Chinese and other immigrants, unlike say Jamaica or Trinidad. It is interesting that many of the wealthiest families in Haiti are Lebanese, such as the Naders.
Overall I don't find this set of possible factors very satisfactory. Is it asking too much to wish for an economics profession that is obsessed with such a question?
If you are looking for some cross-sectional variation to ponder, consider the fate of Haitians in Suriname (they make up a big chunk of the population there), Haiti vs. Santiago, Cuba, pre-Castro of course, or why early Haitian migrants to Montreal have done better than later migrants to Miami and Brooklyn.
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
Deforestation and the resultant erosion and loss of topsoil are a major factor in Haitian poverty. Further, the connection between hillside construction and deforestation is direct and the amount of housing which has collapsed in the hillsides is staggering. While such hillside development and use of wood for charcoal is a contributor to deforestation, it probably could have been a sustainable contribution were it not for the loss of forest to colonial plantation farming and to loss of old-growth hardwoods to the “reparations”, in the form of lumber, extracted by France from Haiti in the century after independence, as “compensation” and as a form of blackmail in return for France not re-invading militarily. Where did the Haitian forests go? In large part, they were used to furnish French homes.
Looking at the long term is of limited usefulness. Compare South Korea from 1953 to today, and post-Nuclear Japan from 1945 to today.
I would suggest we should look at corruption levels in the last 30-odd years. Environmental degradation, lack of capital and property rights, etc, can probably all be linked to corruption levels, at least in part.
The RCMP have been in Haiti for years trying to improve the quality of the local police, for exactly this reason. Several officers are now missing in the quake.
How could you leave out the fact that Japan was occupied by the US Marines from 1945-2009?
Because the US Marine occupation improved the lot of Haitians over what it had been before and after, Judy Cross. Particularly between the end of the anti-US rebellion in 1922 and the Great Depression in 1930, the place was getting it together: infrastructure improvements, increased literacy, public order, public health, economic growth. Google “Borno” and “Russell”.
The occupation also happened to be racist, though, and that made it unpopular with the locals. It is better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.
As for how Haiti started: Dessalines invited the white population back to Haiti in 1803 and then ordered their massacre in 1805. Read the end of Lothrop Stoddard’s “French Revolution in San Domingo”, the year before the US invasion and still readily available at Google Books. That more than anything else, IMO, kept everyone sane out of the area until 1915.
…..”and we are not racists against black people as in the US.”
Hey, Pierre-Louis from Montreal, you really need to update your anti-American screed, have you ever noticed the color of our President? Want to point out a black politician in Canada or Quebac for that matter of any national prominence? Duh.
Pierre-Louis said…
“As for why Haitians migrants in Montreal did better than in the US, well, Quebec has better social policies than the US, we speak the same language, and we are not racists against black people as in the US.”
I’ve never known a more racist population than that of French-speaking Quebec.
A single-channel resource structure has strangled Haiti since immediately after the revolution. Think Lord Acton, or proverbs like ‘A Fish Rots from the Head.’ This means corruption. For details, see chapter 5 of The Origin of Cultures (2009 — see Amazon).
“The US has a black President and several other blacks in high positions. Canada has none and certainly Quebec is a very racist place.”
The black, Haitian Governor General of Canada might disagree with you. She’s the head of state and the Queen’s representative in Canada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada
The very people who lay the blame for Haiti’s civic poverty at the feet of the “Western” world (more specifically the USA) would transform the west into Haiti if given the chance.
BTW Haiti was colonized by Europeans AND Africans.
- A Carib
The elephant in the room is heritable group differences in IQ. Yes, (1) is true and other points are true, but all they imply without stating is that Africans can’t make it on their own — definitely not to modern standards.
Sorry the truth is so horrifying we must cloak it in political correctness, but Haiti is the perfect case study. There were no African Hamiltons and Jeffersons and Franklins to found the country, there weren’t lesser lights to carry it forward.
Self-selected, cream-of-the-crop successful Haitian immigrants do not rebut this basic truth.
Haiti is poor because it has bad domestic politics. Until they improve their politics, there will be no good decision making whether in economics, education, or infrastructure. Outside investment in Haiti will remain low. Bad government may be culturally ingrained since colonial times, but until they get good politics, they’re doomed.
Regarding point 5, I would speculate the “intransitivity” described is this:
The petty gods of voodoo tradition are indifferent to humanity, follow no moral code, and respond only to bribes. Their power to harm is held greater than their power to help, such that the voodoo gods will only give power that they first take from somewhere else. So the voodoo sense of supernature is totally unlike the Catholic sense of supernature in which divine grace is unlimited, always given for good ends, and always given freely (not purchased).
A culture which practices voodoo is one in which personal success is attributed to one’s ability to manipulate said petty gods into taking from one’s neighbors and giving to oneself. Such a culture must be consumed with the existence of, and the potential for, antagonistic interpersonal relationships — curses, blood feuds, and the like. So a political culture of peaceful coexistence, bargaining, and compromise is unlikely to take hold.
Hmmmm.
@ Posted by: Current at Jan 14, 2010 7:08:48 AM
“Notice that laws against cutting down trees aren’t present in developed countries. As far as I know, in Britain there were none even when it was a developing country in the 19th and 18th centuries.”
Completely false.
In Britain there were many laws, with nasty punishments too, for cutting down trees without proper permission. Particularly trees that could/would be used in shipbuilding and most especially trees that were suitable for ship masts.
Something to be said about being a former French colony…. the perfect example…. New Orleans, Louisiana.
Critically — land tenure is not secure. Land transfers are recorded by law or by custom. Most transfers take place using the customary system to avoid registration costs. This leads to all kinds of arguments over ownership and, when local power changes, land frequently seized by the new governors. This ends up in a huge mess. No one feels secure.
Sounds like a complaint about China, yet China doesn’t suffer the problems of Haiti.
Sorry, property rights isn’t the magic bullet of economic stability.
I have a theory about the correlation between length of time colonised and viability as a nation state. South Africa, colonised in the seventeenth century versus Zimbabwe, colonised in the nineteenth, for example. Or India, colonised in the seventeenth century, versus Afghanistan, never colonised. As the old adage goes, the best way to end up with a wealthy, democratic and modern country is to be invaded by the United States (or the British in previous centuries).
Hmmmm.
@ craig
“Regarding point 5, I would speculate the “intransitivity” described is this:”
IMO as a non-Christian I have a very deep respect for Christianity and the positive influence it has had on the world. Homo Sapiens has been around for about 100,000+ years and yet we’ve only really developed significantly in the last couple thousand years or so. Frankly I attribute that to Christianity.
1st PAGE.
Christian Wedlock.
QUESTION:
Can a woman have more than two husbands?
ANSWER:
No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.
1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III).
Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria).
Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.
1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611.
What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:
A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A man and courtesan/prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
An adulterer and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A fornicator and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.
2nd PAGE.
Luke 1:28 King James 1611.
Luke 1:31 King James 1611.
Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611.
In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son, the father being God the Father. And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.
Luke 2:23 King James 1611.
Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611.
And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.
Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611.
Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611.
And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.
Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611.
Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611.
Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.
Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611.
“Came in unto her† means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a payment of his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar. Judah then pledged Tamar that she could marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his pledge and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry. Tamar came and Judah demanded that Tamar tell him by which man she was with child. Tamar then produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his pledge and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar could have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her. Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah.
3rd PAGE.
Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611.
Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611.
Genesis 3:20 King James 1611.
The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means “man† in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life† in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.
Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611.
Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.
1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611.
A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.
1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611.
A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.
Titus 1:6 King James 1611.
An elder can have only one wife.
1 Timothy 5:9 King James 1611.
Elders are not to provide for widows who have only had one husband.
The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522.
Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.
To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.
Luke 1:35&41 King James 1611.
Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.
4th PAGE.
Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.
Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611.
The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. Although do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was not in wedlock with any woman.
But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.
1st Choice:
Virgin woman without wedlock.
2nd Choice:
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.
3rd Choice:
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.
A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.
But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran† and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church†. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church!
A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.
Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.
5th PAGE.
Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.
That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.
And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.
The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.
Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C.
League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D.
Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk.
Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.
And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.
Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.
Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.
Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTI.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATI.
6th PAGE.
CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK.
1st. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.
2nd. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s necessary or just defense, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.
3rd. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.
4th. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.
5th. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.
6th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.
7th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.
8th. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.
9th. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.
10th. If any child or children, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child or those children so offending shall be put to death.
11th. If any stubborn and rebellious son or sons, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son or sons will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son or those sons so offending shall be put to death.
12th. If any unmarryed man above twentysix years of age and under thirtynine years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over thirteen days with any marryed woman under thirtynine years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son in wedlock, or unmarryed woman under thirtynine years of age; he shall be put to death.
13th. If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny wedlock with two husbands by a marryed woman, said marryed woman having borne a son in wedlock, or wedlock with one husband by any unmarryed woman; he shall be put to death.
14th. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his wife; he shall be put to death.
15th. If any marryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.
16th. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother and Lodgemother Authorities, in which case he shall not be punished.
17th. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case she shall not be punished.
18th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.
19th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.
Apparently she/he lives on livejournal and is connected with all kinds of ‘sustainable’ this and ‘agitator’ that…
You mean the APPOINTED governor general who was AT LEAST a quota Francophone pick? Yeah, that’s the same as electing blacks to the highest offices.
It’s because they had a successful slave revolt, one of only one in all of history: As arnold kling commented earlier:
I was also going to say that Haiti was isolated by its revolution. Western nations were very frightened of black slave revolts, and so they minimized interaction with Haiti. The isolation probably caused a lot of economic and cultural problems.
Posted by: Arnold Kling at Jan 13, 2010 1:33:54 PM
It’s full of irony, but there it is. The slave societies that did not revolt retained their ties with capitalist investors. Haiti threw them out. It’s not fair, it’s not good, it’s not the way the world should be. It nevertheless, is.
Yes, being invaded by the US was so bad for Western Europe, Japan, and South Korea. It must be that!
Seriously? ‘Cut colonial ties too early.’ Yeah, they really should have not tried to free themselves from slavery. But, when they did, it was only foreseeable, and thus their fault, that the French would plunder their wealth before leaving and the Americans would treat them as a great threat because they showed black people could be free. No mention of the U.S. backing of the Duvalier’s? The answer is exploitation and oppression. See The Uses of Haiti.
In the end, a nation’s success will depend on the culture and whether property rights are protected. Growth is impossible without property rights.
So, China isn’t growing? Or is China ahead of the US in property rights based on its much higher growth rates?
Sorry, property rights is no magic bullet, and the economic development of the US was based for centuries on the government taking the land from its owners to spread the wealth of the land around to corporations and selected white men. When Andrew Jackson saw land he wanted, he got the Congress to fund the removal by force of the land owners so he could claim it. Why do you think the glory years include “When the West was won” referring to the government defeating and taking the land from the landowners who fought to defend their property rights and obtain justice for crimes against them.
“How could you leave out the fact that Haiti was occupied by the US Marines from 1915-1934?”
Not sufficient, either. Many countries have had American occupations. Many went on to be top economic powers.
Also, look how far other countries have come since 1934. Much of Europe, including Germany and Poland, were devastated in the 1940s. So was Japan. They’ve rebuilt to become major economic powers. Haiti is still destitute.
“I have a theory about the correlation between length of time colonised and viability as a nation state.”
This statement makes zero sense. The Portuguese African colonies were under colonial rule longer than almost any other colonies, from the mid-16th century until 1974. Most of them – Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique – were or are basket cases.
Maybe your case study only applies to Anglo-American colonies, but then as another counter example, I’ll offer Jamaica, a British colony from the mid-17th century until 1962. Or St. Lucia or Dominica.
Some other comments: the casual cultural chauvinism on this board is depressing. It is obvious most people know about as much about voodoo as Pat Robertson. Read a book. Voodoo has little to nothing to do some mythical “Haitian culture” that breeds poverty.
If I had to posit my principal reasons for endemic Haitian poverty, they would be:
1. Overpopulation – since conditions on French plantations were so brutal, the average lifespan of an African slave on the sugar plantations was 21 years of age. If most were imported as teenagers, the average lifespan of a slave in the colony was 3-7 years. Because of that the French imported massive amounts of slaves into the colony. According to one historian (the name escapes me at the minute, I think it was Laurent Dubois), the colony had to import food because the plantations were entirely given over to export-oriented crops. So when the slaves revolted in 1791, and they ceased to be worked to death, Haiti ended up overpopulated for its actual size.
2. Re-peasantization – I mentioned this above and it is discussed in Thomas Holt’s book on Jamaica, “The Problem of Freedom.” On Jamaica, the British colonial system endured following slavery and the big estates were not broken up as the emancipated would have preferred. On Haiti, however, with the death of Louverture in a French prison, the radical generals that rose through the ranks acquiesced to the demands of their rebels and dissolved the estates. The slaves, most of whom had come from Africa (due logically to the death rate and the high rate of slave replacement in Haiti), wanted to establish African modes of agricultural production based on small collective lands held by a clan, without a clear delineation of property rights. This effectively liquidated a capitalist mode of agriculture, and also weakened the concept of property ownership. Now, while the mulatto elite held big estates and had the poorer blacks work for them, the blacks always had an “escape mechanism” (per Hirschman) to their family plots. Wage labor was thus casual and supplemented rather than replaced small-scale agriculture. Thus, no capitalization of agriculture.
Haiti persisted in a sort of “respectable poverty” until the US occupation of 1915-1934 (described in both Renda, “Taking Haiti” and Schmidt, “US Occupation of Haiti”) rescrambled property rights. The US tried to establish a modern, rationalized system of property rights, which had the net effect of allowing foreigners and the mulatto elite to buy up the countryside and begin to rationalize agriculture. However, since there was no nascent industry for the peasants to enter into as a labor force, most ended up as peons toiling away on the huge estates.
3. Reparations to the French – this has been covered by others, but this was a huge burden the Haitians paid for more than a 100 years, and in those 100 years, they were forced to borrow money form US and British banks to fund those necessary services of government that were unfundable due to the massive debt repaid to the French. The US sent the marines in in 1915 in part to guarantee the debt of National City Bank (aka Citibank) that was heavily invested in Haiti. Even if the Haitians finally paid off the 150 million francs in 1947, they still have outstanding debt from those years from the US and UK, service of which takes a big bite out of their government’s budget.
4. US and Foreign meddling – there is no way to dismiss this entirely. The US has been fucking around in Haitian affairs since 1915, usually to prop up various army strongmen who were either a.) anti-Communist or b.) defending US interests in Haiti (National Bank, United Fruit, etc.). The US occupied the nation from 1915-1934, helped depose a socialist government in 1949, propped up the Duvaliers from 1957-1986, and twice encouraged the military to overthrow Aristide (whatever you think of him, getting the army involved was not a positive step towards democracy).
5. Isolation of the Mulatto Elite – one point where Diamond’s “Collapse” is relevant is suggestion that societies collapse when the elite are isolated from the popular masses. Haiti is a case in point, where much of Haiti’s elite lives in gated, guarded communities, or in France, or in Miami, and rules the country in abstentia through their family connections who are in politics or the army. Again, whatever you think of Aristide and Lavalas, they attempted to reorient Haiti’s priorities from servicing this absentee Haitian elite to focusing on the vast mass of impoverished Haitians. This of course breeds kleptocracy, where mulatto elites act as gatekeepers to Western groups that want Haitian natural resources. The mulatto elite skims off the top and any benefits of Western investment are gobbled up by this essentially predatory class.
I am discouraged at their ability to succeed in the face of problems 1-3, but recent reports suggest that under Préval, another Lavalas member, things were beginning to turn around, though this was in part due to the involvement of outside organizations, from Bill Clinton’s outfit to the Venezuelans and Brazilians.
Anyway, that is my quick and dirty take on why Haiti is so poor.
Often overlooked in most contemporary histories of the Haitian revolution is the wholesale massacre of the islands white inhabitants by the last successful revolutionaries. Any whites who did not flee where murdered including children.
This had the effect of blowing the county’s brains out. A slave based plantation system intentionally kept slaves illiterate and uneducated. The strange economics of sugar plantations often meant that it was more economical to import finished goods than to maintain skilled craftsman locally. Slaves were to valuable in the fields to train up or educate. As a result, all the educated and skilled people were white. When they were killed/exiled, very, very few people had the education and skills to manage a society/technology-base on par with that which prevailed before the revolution.
A good model of historical Haiti would be modern day Zimbabwe where educated and skilled whites have been driven from the country. Haiti had to start out bereft of the hard learned lessons in law, politics, commerce and technology that gifted Europe up until that time. They were forced to rely on a much smaller knowledge base of a hodgepodge of small scale cultures from sub-Sahara Africa. They could never really catch up.
A lot of factors came into play but I think in the end this was the decisive one. You just can’t start from virtual scratch in terms of your intellectual capital and expect to end up on par.
“You just can’t start from virtual scratch in terms of your intellectual capital and expect to end up on par.”
This also makes zero sense. Thousands of Haitian mulattoes, many of whom were well educated, remained after the revolution. Like Alexandre Pétion (namesake for Pétionville) who was educated in France, or Jean-Pierre Boyer, educated in France, or André Rigaud, and so on and so forth. In the 19th century, the mulatto elite regularly sent their children abroad to be educated.
So I’m not sure what your point is, but I could speculate, and the results would not be pretty…
Bob — That’s a patently stupid accusation given that Dominicans are black, too. Check out the large number currently playing in the MLB. Sheesh.
Mulp, et. al. — This ridiculous leftist claptrap whereby the failures of the “oppressed” are blamed on external forces and the screwups are never — NEVER! — held accountable for their own actions is really old and trite. The same kind of crap is discussed in the context of urban crime here:
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_1_chicago-crime.html
Mulp, et. al. — This ridiculous leftist claptrap whereby the failures of the “oppressed” are blamed on external forces and the screwups are never — NEVER! — held accountable for their own actions is really old and trite.
I just delineated five reasons why Haitians are poor in a lengthy post above, finding equal cause in the actions of Haitians and in the interference of foreigners.
Insisting that external actors played no role in Haiti’s problems is equally trite, and in Haiti’s case, particularly trite, since the history of foreign intervention in Haiti is well and extensively documented in the historical record.
dadanarchist — I never said external forces did not cause problems for Haiti. But to hear some tell it, that cesspool of corruption is entirely the fault of external forces and cannot in any way be blamed on the Haitians themselves.
Can someone explain what “political intransitivity” means? I have no idea what it means. What does it have to do with voodoo?
Hard to take Hegel seriously when explanations of his ideas are themselves incomprehensible and opaque.
Judy Cross
What were the Hatians doing before the Marines’ occupation to become prosperous that the Marines stopped?
Most places that were once under the iron-fisted rule of the French tend to do badly, unless the underlying cultures of the people occupying the region encourage thrift, industriousness, education, private property, and the nuclear family. The difference between places like Vietnam and Quebec versus places like Haiti and Mali has to do with the basic concepts that make up the culture. Certainly, French culture did not lend itself to the success of regions they ruled as well as Anglican culture did. But, if you’re an ignorant socialist, you’ll simply ignore such arguments as racist.
Smart fractions?
Talent Development & Excellence
Vol. 1, No. 1, 2009, 3-25
The impact of smart fractions, cognitive ability of
politicians and average competence of peoples on
social development’
“Following an economic research tradition “human capital† is relevant for economic growth and wealth (Hanushek & Kimko, 2000; Lynn & Vanhanen, 2002, 2006; Jones & Schneider, 2006; Weede, 2006; Rindermann, 2008a). In addition, cognitive ability of nations has a positive impact on political development, in that it helps building up democracy, the rule of law and political liberty (Simpson, 1997; Rindermann, 2008b).
Intelligence, knowledge and the intelligent use of knowledge also have beneficial effects on health, for instance they act as a brake on the spread of HIV (Oesterdiekhoff & Rindermann, 2007; Lakhanpal & Ram, 2008; Rindermann & Meisenberg, 2009). Finally, cognitive competence is relevant for the development of modernity as a societal and especially as a cultural phenomenon consisting of education, autonomy, liberty, morality and rationality (Habermas, 1985/1981; Meisenberg, 2004; Oesterdiekhoff, 2008; Lynn, Harvey & Nyborg, 2009). Societies at a higher ability level develop more complex, more evidence-based, more ethical and more rational world views.
For some scholars like Georg Oesterdiekhoff (2000) or Michael Hart (2007) intelligence is the driving force of history.
These broad effects at the cross-national data level are backed in different societies by results at the individual level for job performance and wealth (Bacharach & Baumeister, 1998; Schmidt & Hunter, 2004; Irwing & Lynn, 2006; Rindermann & Thompson, 2009), for tolerance, civic political attitudes and participation in elections (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Denny & Doyle, 2008; Deary, Batty & Gale, 2008), for health behavior and health (Goldman & Smith, 2002; Gottfredson, 2004), moral judgment (Piaget, 1997/1932;†
http://iratde.org/issues/1-2009/tde_issue_1-2009_03_rindermann_et_al.pdf
Haiti is poor due to a low average IQ among its indigenous population of 95% africans.
(In the 18th century Haiti was the largest sugar producer in the world. Universities and other centers of higher learning kept the island abreast of the world’s progress and advances, and it became one of the richest of France’s overseas possessions—richer than any of the 13 original American colonies. Haiti came to be called the Jewel of the Caribbean.
All this ground to a halt in the late 1790s, when the egalitarianism introduced by Whites fresh from the French Revolution precipitated a Black revolt in which, ultimately, the Black revolutionaries murdered nearly every one of the 40,000 White men, women, and children on the island. In the 200 years since the revolution, under one corrupt and tyrannical regime after another, Black Haiti has become one of the most dangerous, superstitious, and backward places of Earth. The vast majority of the people are illiterate, and less than 3 percent finish primary education. It has one of the lowest per capita incomes on Earth, endemic crime and drug problems, wholesale destruction of the environment, negligible education, high infant mortality and primitive health care, and its dominant religion is voodoo)—–”My Awakening”, D. Duke
Although the lengthy duration of Haitian poverty is inextricably linked with anti-egalitarian arguments in the spectrum of racial “hierarchies”(the ‘darker-skinned’ and more ‘negro-dialected’ tend to not thrive by capitalistic metrics and “civilizational standards”) and while the intransitivity or solipsistivity of voodoo deities may have, in the spiritual spectrum, left a nihilistic legacy of “sound and fury signifying nothing”, that country just got a lot richer. Because CNN IS transitive; global capital IS seeking redemption(from the ‘high-yielding’ sins of Madoff and Mortgage paper) and……..I dont know of too many devils that are gonna hold you to a pact after 30,000 loosed souls in one fell swoop. Do you?
The way I read this, our country has imposed tariffs and quotas on cane sugar production, with the variable being whatever is good for US sugar cane farmers becomes policy.
Loans were extended or revolked to Haitian plantation owners to artificially maintain a constant import rate. Taxes on imported refined sugar, combined with direct payoffs to plantation owners, ensured that Haiti would never develop an industry based on their main marketable commodity.
In short Roosevelt screwed them royally. In keeping with a long standing American tradition started by Jefferson but continuing on throughout the antibellum, when despite the Haitian slave revolution defeating Napoleon, which led directly to the abandonment of French designs on Louisiana, the only ingrate on Mount Rushmore refused to recognise their government, normalise trade, or extend the protections of the Monroe Doctrine to Haiti.
That’s my take on it.
For once I’m actually sort of glad we have a black president, however resolutely incompetent he may be. Perhaps racial bonds will overcome the status quo of usary through sugar tariffs.
The way I read this, our country has imposed tariffs and quotas on cane sugar production, with the variable being whatever is good for US sugar cane farmers becomes policy.
Loans were extended or revolked to Haitian plantation owners to artificially maintain a constant import rate. Taxes on imported refined sugar, combined with direct payoffs to plantation owners, ensured that Haiti would never develop an industry based on their main marketable commodity.
In short Roosevelt screwed them royally. In keeping with a long standing American tradition started by Jefferson but continuing on throughout the antibellum, when despite the Haitian slave revolution defeating Napoleon, which led directly to the abandonment of French designs on Louisiana, the only ingrate on Mount Rushmore refused to recognise their government, normalise trade, or extend the protections of the Monroe Doctrine to Haiti.
That’s my take on it.
For once I’m actually sort of glad we have a black president, however resolutely incompetent he may be. Perhaps racial bonds will overcome the status quo of usary through sugar tariffs.
—I’d chalk much of the systemic poverty in Haiti down to the US-led destruction of the Haitian black swine in the late ’70s, —
Yes, I can see where that is a more influential cause than the 1957 political dictatorship of an ultra-liberal “Papa DOC” —A former Minister of Health who had earned a reputation as a humanitarian while serving as an administrator in a U.S.-funded anti-yaws campaign, Duvalier (known as “Papa Doc”) soon established another dictatorship. His regime is regarded as one of the most repressive and corrupt of modern times.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/01/why-is-haiti-so-poor.html
socialism kills
—–How could you leave out the fact that Haiti was occupied by the US Marines from 1915-1934?—-
How could you not offer the merest hint of a cause effect relationship here?
per wiki::::::The U.S. occupation was self-interested, sometimes brutal, and caused problems that lasted past its lifetime. Reforms, though, were carried out. The currency was reformed and the debt stabilized. Corruption was reduced, although never eradicated. Public health, education, and agricultural development were greatly improved.
Also they made that pact with the devil to get free from the prince Napoleon III or whatever.
“Until a cadastre system is established (DPKO still thinks elections and ‘stabilization’ are the key to developing Haiti), we can count on generations of planted and slashed trees, with little economic progress.”
Omitted variable here is cognitive ability which is necessary for economic development.
Rindermann, H. (2008a). Relevance of education and intelligence at the national level for the economic welfare of people. Intelligence, 36, 127-142.
Rindermann, H. (2008b). Relevance of education and intelligence for the political development of nations: Democracy, rule of law and political liberty. Intelligence, 36, 306-322.
Clearly the reason they are so poor is that the Haitians made a pact with the devil, as Pat Robertson said. He gave them independence, but he never said that he would make them rich.
Charlie B: these two arguments are not exclusive.
It may well be that black nations are disproportionally inclined to kill or persecute their intellectual capital.
Has anyone tried to find any correlation, or lack thereof, between military occupation and country development?
My guess, based on the history I know, would be that generally there should be no correlation – and, in cases of peacekeeping efforts, probably a positive correlation.
People will not stop eating, working and doing business just because foreign troops are present on their territory.
The possible exceptions are:
a) occupation by real savages, something like Genghis Khan,
b) occupation whose sole concern is to loot the occupied country’s resources (a la Japanese in Korea before 1945).
None of those applies to most of the 20th century occupations.
I think Haiti is poor primarily for the same reason digital cameras are designed in Japan rather than, for example, in Ghana: it’s full of low IQ black people. Therefore they have an extremely small “smart fraction”, i.e. a population of people with an IQ above 105 or so, meaning the sort of people who (predominantly) form the scientific, professional, managerial, and entreprenurial classes.
I think it is interesting that in this discussion we have a combination of historical determinists (citing past occupations, colonization – these people would make Marx proud) and geographic determinists (ie., Jared Diamond has a huge following here), and pretty much noone doing economic development analysis per se. If you as an economist cannot find economic rules that allow for development, you do not understand economics, or economics is irrelevant and subordinate to the past of a place, or its location.
All of these historical and geographic issues are factors, they are not irrelevant, but they are co-related, not causes, of the lack of development in Haiti. Please read Hernando de Soto, and study MICROeconomics a bit more, let’s have a serious discussion about why Haiti is poor and not cite historical circumstances which, while important to take into consideration, are not the primary explanation for the situation after the passage of 200 years.
My candidate? A lack of human capital. Haiti lacks a critical threshold of people with the necessary skills to administer a minimal set of modern state institutions. Without a considerable infusion of human capital — which means a lot more than a 9000 member UN peacekeeping force — no amount of material aid will rectify this situation.
What Haiti needs, in so many words, is a benign form of British colonialism, but under another name. It would have to be manned and financed by the international community and last a generation at least.
I would wager an overwhelming majority of Haitians would go for such a plan. I would if I were in their shoes. Wouldn’t you?
Why is Haiti poor?
Because of low average IQ among its 95% majority Africans.
Tyler,
Apparently you’re really fucking stupid, at least when it comes to politics. I’m absolutely amazed that you don’t mention the US-sponsored coups of Aristide.
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
Comments on this entry are closed.