"Sub-Saharan Africa can theoretically just copy what worked for dozens of other societies."
There is a lot buried in that word theoretically, as you well know, and you already probably have a better understanding of the dozen plus experts trying to figure out why that has not happened already.
While I appreciate that conducting "specialization and trade" can be the more efficient way to obtain wealth and health, etc., I have often wondered just why a nation of 10 to 80 million people would not or could not have sufficient human capital, mineral resources, etc. to develop internally with minimal import/ export (not necessarily zero). Besides getting that population up to speed via education to best use their human capital, I guess we need to also inculcate the idea from Jefferson that "laid open to every view the palpable truth that the mass of mankind has not been born, with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god." Then maybe they would throw off the "big man" rule or chieftain cultural mindset holding too many of them back.
I write much more about it in my second book “Promoting Progress,” but I think the biggest barrier for developing nations, particularly in Africa, is a lack of high-value export industries. Those inject money into the local economy and make it much easier to solve other problems:
The most optimistic take I can foresee is a future where the global population has shrunk but our technological and economic development continued.
By 2100, the world would be a vibrant and thriving place with clean air, water, and vast stretches of jungle and forests. Interrupted only by the clean, shimmering skyscrapers of urban development where people live their lives using far less material goods than is possible today.
The inhabitants of 2100 would look to the sky and see a Moon dotted with city lights from its own nascent urban development.
"Sub-Saharan Africa can theoretically just copy what worked for dozens of other societies."
There is a lot buried in that word theoretically, as you well know, and you already probably have a better understanding of the dozen plus experts trying to figure out why that has not happened already.
While I appreciate that conducting "specialization and trade" can be the more efficient way to obtain wealth and health, etc., I have often wondered just why a nation of 10 to 80 million people would not or could not have sufficient human capital, mineral resources, etc. to develop internally with minimal import/ export (not necessarily zero). Besides getting that population up to speed via education to best use their human capital, I guess we need to also inculcate the idea from Jefferson that "laid open to every view the palpable truth that the mass of mankind has not been born, with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god." Then maybe they would throw off the "big man" rule or chieftain cultural mindset holding too many of them back.
I write much more about it in my second book “Promoting Progress,” but I think the biggest barrier for developing nations, particularly in Africa, is a lack of high-value export industries. Those inject money into the local economy and make it much easier to solve other problems:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-export-industries-matter-so-much
The most optimistic take I can foresee is a future where the global population has shrunk but our technological and economic development continued.
By 2100, the world would be a vibrant and thriving place with clean air, water, and vast stretches of jungle and forests. Interrupted only by the clean, shimmering skyscrapers of urban development where people live their lives using far less material goods than is possible today.
The inhabitants of 2100 would look to the sky and see a Moon dotted with city lights from its own nascent urban development.